Adbar

By | Thu, 01 January 1970 00:00 | 3937

Leave a comment

  • Anonymous on October 12 2010 said:
    The Green house gases are the main cause of global warming. The gases like Carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide are the main hazards to the global warming. Many deadly effects are seen main being spread of hazardous diseases, melting of ice caps and glaciers, increase in droughts and warmer waters and hurricanes. The not only endanger the environment but also is a threat to all species.
  • Anonymous on July 24 2011 said:
    18 The Effect of Global Warming was Global Distrust. 19 The Global Distrust is what Caused its name to change to Climate Change. 20 All the Time Lines show the Ice Increasing as the Sun Dims. 21 The Effect of the Sun CAN NOT be changed by any Effect of Man. 22 These Rules of Cause and Effect can be Broken BY GOD at anytime. 23 The effect of the Butterfly (aka The Butterfly Effect) Caused the Climate to appear to Change. 24 The Effect of the Climate Change was an Ice Age.
  • Anonymous on July 24 2011 said:
    :eek: M_M Said 18 The Effect of Global Warming was Global Distrust. 19 The Global Distrust is what Caused its name to change to Climate Change. 20 All the Time Lines show the Ice Increasing as the Sun Dims. 21 The Effect of the Sun CAN NOT be changed by any Effect of Man. 22 These Rules of Cause and Effect can be Broken BY GOD at anytime. 23 The effect of the Butterfly (aka The Butterfly Effect) Caused the Climate to appear to Change. 24 The Effect of the Climate Change was an Ice Age.
  • Anonymous on August 10 2011 said:
    Did anyone notice that the writer of the global warming article said that greenhouse gases are lighter than air. What exactly is air in this article? Oxygen? Nitrogen? Carbon Dioxide? Methane? Really, did the writer ever study Earth science or just read the standard global warming jargon. Plants, by the way, thrive in warm humid environments filled with carbon dioxide. And if carbon dioxide is so light that it all goes high into the atmosphere to create a greenhouse effect, then all the plants on earth would be dead and us along with them. Who even said carbon dioxide gas was effective at traping radiant heat. Clouds are very effective insulators not carbon gas.
  • Anonymous on May 10 2011 said:
    Geothermal energy is used for heating buildings through district heating systems. These systems pipe hot water from the surface of the earth into buildings and are available for immediate use.Locating a site for trapping geothermal energy requires certain factors to be taken into consideration. For instance, the well have to be drilled at such a place where it can provide hot rocks in the layer of the earth crust’s, which can heat the water pumped into the well at suitable level.
  • Anonymous on May 04 2010 said:
    Tidal turbines seem promising. They would need to be below the depths of shipping in channels between coasts cusing fast tidal flows. Because of the depths they would be largely immune from rough sea effects. Tbhey would anchor to heavy concrete, rquiring the sort of holding that a large ship anchoh has, Connection to shore by sub seas cables. Opportunities providing these conditions are limited but where they exist go go go.!
  • Anonymous on November 25 2010 said:
    A major drawback of tidal power stations is that they can only generate when the tide is flowing in or out - in other words, only for 10 hours each day. However, tides are totally predictable, so we can plan to have other power stations generating at those times when the tidal station is out of actionCommodity Tips Free trial
  • Anonymous on May 25 2011 said:
    If these turbines were installed in rivers, then the power generation would be continuous.Tidal power generation is equally important, but power generation in rivers has decided advantages.Equipment and machinery installed in oceans is difficult to control, the water is corrosive, and unusual weather presents more severe obstacles than rivers. The mathematics involved in designing river power generation would not have to account for as wide an amount of safety factors. Also, power generation in rivers can be located far inland, or almost any location within an area provided there is sufficient river current.Good luck.Paul Tyler, 17 Wood Lane, Maynard, MA 01754Tele: (978) 897-1901
  • Anonymous on February 13 2010 said:
    The main cause increase of oil prise is that our beleive on democracy because we only follow the old rules and regulations we have no creative mind and oly follow those people who do work only for them self like in previous year our general Pervase Musharf who was the honest with ourself and our country but pepole were against him and now also.During his work there were no these issue like we face now but now a days we are face all these problem thet about this we were only listen like bomb blasting increase in oil price etc.But now a days we beleve in democracy that have only name.Thate only work only for himself not for all of us.and other cause increase in oil prise is increase in population. Our demand increase but there is no enough supply.other cause is that our supplyer stock this and after some time when it has shortage the sell this at high price
  • Anonymous on May 15 2010 said:
    "Many employers, understanding the financial strain their employees are under during a recession will oftentimes allow employees to work from home one or two days a week."More wishful thinking. Even if it is true, which I speculate that it isn't, the unemployed (the real victims of the recession) tend to find jobs which were further afield from their previous line of employment - which INCREASES miles travelled once the recession lifts, and unemployment starts falling (miles travelled after the previous 92 recession increased not decreased). Peak Demand for oil is an illusion, until we have electric cars fit for purpose (cars than can go up hills, carry shopping etc).
  • Anonymous on March 14 2011 said:
    The main cause increase of oil prise is that our beleive on democracy because we only follow the old rules and regulations we have no creative mind and oly follow those people who do work only for them self like in previous year our general Pervase Musharf who was the honest with ourself and our country but pepole were against him and now also.During his work there were no these issue like we face now but now a days we are face all these problem thet about this we were only listen like bomb blasting increase in oil price etc.But now a days we beleve in democracy that have only name.Thate only work only for himself not for all of us.and other cause increase in oil prise is increase in population. Our demand increase but there is no enough supply.other cause is that our supplyer stock this and after some time when it has shortage the sell this at high price[/quote]wat.
  • Anonymous on February 01 2010 said:
    Excellent sourece of information, this by far was the "BEST" organized, clear description of what I needed to do my researh paper on.

    Thank you so much!!!
  • Anonymous on January 27 2010 said:
    very helpfull
    Thanks xxx
  • Anonymous on February 22 2010 said:
    I do not believe in burning down the earth.However call this climate crap for what it is, a money grab of the wealthy to give to countries who do not have the nohow since the dawn of ages to build a toilet. Just look at the policies of the Poper and the marxist United Nations. For a minute there I thought I was talking about America.
    Ummmm.
  • Anonymous on March 03 2010 said:
    I believe that the global warming is a bunch of bulls shit. It is a government conspiercy.
  • Anonymous on March 31 2010 said:
    I can't figure out which is more arrogant, thinking man created global warming or thinking man can stop it.
  • Anonymous on April 05 2010 said:
    Yes, your explanation of the causes of global warming understood. My move? We drive a Honda insight which averages ~45 mpg, so we burn less gasoline. I worked last weekend and this weekend planting vegetables which "breath" in CO2. I haven't been on any airplanes for a year, work at home office, so don't use an additional building, am cutting down on eating meat.

    I'm trying! My efforts are probably a lot more effective than politicians who fly here and there and use a lot of jet fuel and probably emit a lot of hot air while doing so.
  • Anonymous on April 06 2010 said:
    In and around 1200AD temperatures were between 0.5 to 2 degrees centigrade greater than current temperatures. None of the causes mentioned above were present then. When government and editorials such as the above tries to railroad citizens into action they should read the following and other material like it.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=medieval+warm+period
  • Anonymous on April 08 2010 said:
    Our study has revealed that the major reason for the melting of the pole regions is the thin mantel at the pole regions, such coupled with increased molten activity in these regions, such as opposed to atmospheric changes. We note some change in atmospheric conditions but also note the ability of the earth to heal itself, particularly with respect to greenhouse gasses. Our study has become more self-proving over the past two years.
  • Anonymous on April 17 2010 said:
    Man made global warming has nothing to do with real science. I am sorry but your comment that it is proven is nonsense. I have worked extensively with integro-differential coupled models of nature like the GCM's. I can tell you definitely that bullshit in gives bullshit out. The GCM's do not include thousands of effects including aerosols (e.g. clouds). Right now there is a $1 million prize available if you can contribute to any real understanding of the Navier-Stokes equations which underlie all meteorology. WE simply do not know how to even vaguely get close to real solutions. So man made global warming and its so-called proofs are complete nonsense.... I suggest you look this nonsense under religion and politics.
  • Anonymous on January 02 2011 said:
    For all you who wrote negatives on this issue.The issue on global warming is so plain and simple, you dirty the water you drink from, your drinking water is dirty.How can everyone and i mean everyone , give or take a few individuals, contest such logic is beyond belief.My greatest battles were to teach the ignorant.....I allways lostNapoleon
  • Anonymous on January 05 2011 said:
    You state that green-house gases are lighter than air. But water vapour is denser than air, so it doesn't rise up as you say "Greenhouse gases, being lighter than air, naturally rise up the outer limits of the earth’s atmosphere and then settle there". As moist air ( water vapour in air-mix rises, it cools down, forming clouds and rain. Water vapour creates clouds which block the sun's rays, thereby cooling, not warming. The higher you go into the startosphere, the less mositure there is. So if 2/3rds of GHG are water vapour, then the theory about how much harm it is doing is clearly misleading.There is a lot of taxpayers money funding scientists who love to scare gullible politicians with ever escalating claims.This scam promises something which cannot be delivered by mankind, and those who take the money don't get found out until they are dead. Better than a Madoff scam......
  • Anonymous on January 05 2011 said:
    Water vapour does not as you claim quote "Greenhouse gases, being lighter than air, naturally rise up the outer limits of the earth’s atmosphere and then settle there". Water vapour cools as it rises, causes clouds or rain, reflects the sun's rays and cools the earth. As you go higher into the stratosphere, there is less and less water vapour. So that statement is wrong. Unfortunately, with scientists using scare tactics to bully politicians into giving them more grants of taxpayer's money, there is a lot at stake, and in these austere times,some scientists will do anything to keep those funds flowing. And not one of them can explain previous warmings in the earth's history, yet suddenly they have this opportunity to scare children about runaway global warming. This scam is better than Bernie Madoff's scam, because these guys get to spend your money now on promises that they and for that matter, mankind cannot deliver, now or in the future. When they are found out, they are long dead.
  • Anonymous on April 20 2011 said:
    Since CO2 levels continued to rise while temps peaked in 1998, doesn't that point to failure of global warming theories? Come on...there is no facts. The ice melting can be cause by soot falling on the snow from the recent spate of volcanoes, from fallout of coal plants, from geothermal activity within the earth, and on and on. It's basically anecdotal evidence that you are trying to use to support a scam that would have been exposed years ago had it not been for the liberal media.
  • Anonymous on May 30 2011 said:
    You state that there are scientific facts that show that the planet has been warming, how then do you explain that the last few winters have been amongst the coldest. In the meantime, if you have been paying attention outside you would have noticed that in Ontario at least, this has been a cold spring.
  • Anonymous on August 22 2011 said:
    Global warming has been going on for the past 20,000 years... ever since the ice age ended.
  • Anonymous on August 22 2011 said:
    Volcanoes cause more pollution than we do. I'm guessing former president Bush caused them too?
  • Anonymous on September 25 2011 said:
    bull - A) the global temp has been declining for the last 11 years B) we have half the co2 we have historically had on the planet and need more -co2 is one of the 4 elements necessary to sustain life on the planet. c) the sun controls "global warming" idiot.
  • Anonymous on September 26 2011 said:
    I am guilty of encouraging the idea of global warming by calling for taxation of fossil fuel carbon, so as to provide a painful yet also flexible incentive to reduce fossil fuel burning. **Mea Culpa**But I am also open to the possibility, which we need to bring out of the closet and into the open, that people who already have a philosophical peeve against the automobile have an emotional (if not also financial) vested interest in the basic idea of man-made global warming caused by the automobile and our way of life. We need federal laws to criminalize anybody who shouts down, threatens, assaults, or otherwise interferes with speakers on college/university campuses who upset the liberal applecart by, for example, questioning whether global warming is taking place or whether our way of life (as opposed to sunspots, etc) is the cause of it all.
  • Anonymous on September 27 2011 said:
    If greenhouse gases form an impenetrable barrier that keeps heat from escaping Earth, then how does heat from the sun reach Earth? Is this barrier impenetrable in only one direction? This article should not convince anyone that its authors understand the causes of global warming. This poor summary of the science does everyone a disservice.
  • Anonymous on September 27 2011 said:
    Global warming is a made up lie. Al Gore and all his friends are terrible liars."Global Warming" is still being discussed everywhere so the elite can create a "green" market and tax everyone who exhale CO2. I mean c'mon man. Really? CO2 emissions are needed for tree & plant life to exist!Global Warming is the biggest lie I have ever seen. The puppet masters have been trying so hard to spin this into a "truth", but it is not happening...
  • Anonymous on September 28 2011 said:
    Global warming is the biggest lie that...Where were you when George W. Bush was president?
  • Anonymous on October 14 2011 said:
    "The physical evidence for global warming is quite overwhelming, and it is downright irresponsible (and stupid) not to make use of it.More specifically: (1) precise measurements show atmospheric CO2 has increased from its 280 ppm pre-industrial value to the current ~390 ppm; (2) there is available an accurate HITRAN tabulation of line absorption coefficients for all of the atmospheric absorbing gases; (3) we have available accurate radiation modeling techniques as well as capable global climate models; and (4) that 9 Gigatons of carbon (coal, gas, oil) are being burned each year (by us humans).Based on this basic input data, the relevant physics is inescapably clear that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is indeed enhancing the strength of the terrestrial greenhouse effect, and thus causing global warming to happen – all directly attributable to human industrial activity." Stolen from Rabett Run who quoted others
  • Levine on December 04 2011 said:
    "Carbon Tax" means "oil price increase."Global warming is strategic misdirection/agitprop that will RAISE the price of oil.Cui bono? (duh)85% of Earth's volcanic activity occursundersea. Holocene Age(our present era since end of last Ice Age) will ending rather suddenly as these volcanoes will interrupt the Gulf Stream's ability towarm the Northern Hemisphere. Look it up.
  • John Doe on December 17 2011 said:
    Do you think that HAARP blasting a BILLION watts of MICROWAVE energy into the atmosphere MIGHT heat up the environment.We have 3 systems, and the Russians also have multiple systems.Affects Climate. Causes EARTHQUAKES. ..this is the product of SDI, just another military weapon!But, you want to blame it on us, really???
  • Dano on January 03 2012 said:
    What separates Earth from all the trillions of dead floating rocks is our beautiful but delicate ecosystem. An atmosphere that took billions of years of biochemical modification to support current life should be cared for just a little bit better by it's inhabitants. We trust doctors and car mechanics, why don't we trust the 98% of scientists who say this is a real problem? They can't all be part of some Al Gore led global conspiracy.
  • Bob Samone on January 16 2012 said:
    :-| when you think about it, every day, greenhouse gases are being released, that's tonnes and tonnes being released by millions of humans.
  • Anonymous on January 18 2010 said:
    Extinguished. Does that mean finito? If it does then that is completely wrong. Oil will be available when the parties begin to celebrate the arrival of the 25th century. Of course there won't be much of it, perhaps enough to light the lamps of Shanghai and the South Bronx, but that's another matter.
  • Anonymous on June 25 2010 said:
    Peak oil is a 3rd grader level myth. There may be more crude in the earth than there is water. Look at the hydrocarbons discovered on Saturn's moon titan.
  • Anonymous on October 16 2010 said:
    I think 2039 is when conventional oil could be depleted. I've seen stats saying that the reserves of bitumen will last for up to 200 years. Bitumen is also heavier in pollutants...
  • Anonymous on October 17 2010 said:
    I really suspect growth skepticism is behind the "peak oil" facade. Better challenge the ideological & philosopical notion before some misanthropes impose on us ordinary people with environmentalist sort of policies that put the brakes on the world economy which, as of now, is trying to lift their way out of the doldrums (due to recession).Thank you very much.P.S.: no more excessive politicking please. This is what I am trying to confront the current situation behind the reality of growth skepticism of various sorts.
  • Anonymous on November 14 2011 said:
    Nitrogen , oxygen and sulfur are not compounds.They are just elements which may be a part of different organic compounds.
  • Anonymous on June 20 2010 said:
    Solar energy, wave energy, Geothermal energy, bio fuels etc is going to play a major role in the energy supply for vast majority of world population. Sooner we understand this, better would be for the world.
  • Anonymous on June 11 2010 said:
    As we watch the BP catastrophe in horror one thing is clear: Our energy (and planetary) future is too important to leave in the hands of self-serving corporations. BP, Goldman Sachs, Chevron et al, have invested billions in destructive INDUSTRIAL SCALE wind, solar and geothermal that will result in "drilling" of our remote terrestrial ecosystems. Vast areas of the San Luis Valley, CO and Mojave Desert have already been targeted as solar energy sacrifice zones. We can't assume that clean energy is all good, in reality, BIG industrial renewables and the new “transmission mission” are a costly greenwashes. We need fundamental energy policy reform that decentralizes (and democratizes) our massive, corporate controlled energy system or we will get more of the same destructive mining of our ecosystems.
  • Anonymous on April 18 2010 said:
    Watch the documentary Zeigeist the addendum. It can look utopian but,at the beginning automobiles and planes also cost a fortune to develop.
  • Anonymous on February 11 2010 said:
    Interesting. Shortly after publishing my oil book, a couple of centuries ago, I gave what I thought was a brilliant lecture in Vienna. Later that evening, after the cognac had gone around the table a couple of times, an American buinessman called me a "fool" for believing in (oil) shale. That sobered me up, although I did not appreciate his language - which happened to be right on target.
  • Anonymous on January 13 2010 said:
    We should not judge solar by what it is today. Sure we need to forge ahead at any cost but the solar of the future will have nothing in common with what we are debating today. Today's current solar technology will be obsolete.


    Ray @ Renewable Energy TV
    http://renewable-energy-tv.blogspot.com
  • Anonymous on October 17 2010 said:
    The article about biofuels has not mentioned the misantrophy brought about by growth skepticism.It should be known that it can affect social & economic stability, environmental conservation & protection, public governance and safety, energy, communication & transportation improvements and many more.You are missing the point about this wide philosopical and ideological phenomenon - and some people are justifying their hatred of human achivements, especially today.I know it is important that keeping eyes open and keeping an open mind are there regarding biofuels development. More important, though, that there are real concerns about the impact of growth skepticism have on people's minds. It's the worse thing you might see which is the wrongheaded - and misanthropic - approach towards economic growth and social change.
  • Anonymous on October 17 2010 said:
    And remember: I am going to write down about the real aspects of growth skepticism that exists even today. Please be careful of the claims by some people who are deemed misanthropic (in my opinion).Thank you.
  • Anonymous on February 04 2010 said:
    In my humble but stubborn opinion; the ONLY serious solar energy alternative is to put the darn things in high-Earth orbit. You get 10x the solar energy over earth-based PV panels, and it's 24 hours/day. Power then microwaved to ground-based antenna receivers. Granted it's a new idea, people have been working out the engineering bugs barely 40 years or so. But if rumour be true, (it NEVER is), in the early 1980's Big Oil and friends killed off the practical research begun by NASA and the Soviet space program to work out the bugs.
  • Anonymous on June 04 2010 said:
    Cut the Department of Defense budget in half (1/2 of 1.2 Trillion) and we'll be able to afford it just fine.
  • Anonymous on February 10 2010 said:
    1. Leading China railway logistics/transportation from/to/transit China to Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Russia, Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, East Europe, cover Almaty, Astana, Tashkent, Aktau, Aktobe, Dushanbe, Alamedin, Chimkent, Medeu, Pavlodar Yuzhny

    2. China Multimode Logistics/Freight Forwarding/Transportation (Sea + Train + Truck + River Feede
    3. China international transit transportation/shipment
    4. International Sea/Air logistics
  • Anonymous on January 16 2010 said:
    This author is completely wrong. My students are told to perfectly master the story of the peaking of oil in the United States if they want a passing grade, because the entire story about peaking is told in the history of oil in that country.I can also mention that the production of oil has peaked, or is peaking, in the Non-OPEC countries, which produce 60% of the world's crude. Thus, to talk about what improved technology is misleading, and I hope that our political masters do not get any strange ideas about what technology can do for us.
  • Anonymous on August 03 2010 said:
    The "peak oil" teory, misconsider the fact that new hydrocarbon are continuosly forming in the Earth's mantle, by carburation of Lithium, Calcium, Sodium and Potasium, and posterior hydrolization forming acetylen. Acetylen rose to the Earth's crust, and natural processes of polimerization, form more complex hydrocarbon chains. Thus, the oil supply never be finished. Cheers. Miguel
  • Anonymous on August 03 2010 said:
    The "peak oil" theory misconsider the fact that hydrocarbons are continuously forming in the Earth's mantle, by carburation of Lithium, Calcium, Sodium and Potasium. Posterior hydrolization forms acetylen. Acetylen rose to rocks of the Earth's crust, and processes of polimerization forms more complex chains of hydrocarbon. Thus, oil supply never will be finished. But the public knowledge of that, would attempt against the high price of oil! Cheers. MAG
  • Anonymous on June 09 2011 said:
    I,m sure unfortunately this will never happen as nuclear fission is under attack-therefore all the sheep out there that are enslaved then return home-sit in front of their tv -believe the propaganda being bombarded at them while they eat their poisoned food and drink their flouridated poison water! HAD BETTER WAKE UP! And get out of the green Nazi Death camp!
  • Anonymous on March 27 2010 said:
    Silver will out perform gold about 4 to 1 in coming few years due its dual function industrially and as a PM. Learn more by reading Jason Hommel and Ted Butler. Start at www.investmentrarities.com THEN THERE IS THE FACTOR OF THE FUTURES MANIPULATIONS OF BOTH WITH SILVER THE BIGGER EXPLOSION TO COME WHEN COMEX FUTURES DEFAULT OR THE CFTC ACUALLY FOLLOWS THEIR OWN RULES AND LAW.
  • Anonymous on May 26 2010 said:
    I'm not very optimistic about the CFTC doing a serious look at manipulation in the metals markets. (1) It's obvious there is concentration action going on, and the CFTC is going to drag out any look at it, and (2) jp morgan and others have unlimted money to cover any short squeeze. I mean the entire system is rotten from the Treasury all the way down. I fear the only thing left is a complete collaspe of our society as a Republic.
  • Anonymous on March 02 2010 said:
    It's funny how all of these world controlling oil companies have forced the world to think that the world is heating up. Who benefits from the climate change scare? They do. They seem to benefit from every major decision that happens in the world. Must be nice to own the planet.
  • Anonymous on April 01 2010 said:
    Yes, we are exposed of the biggest lie in modern history.
    Co2 is not causing any heating of the planet. The suns activity controls it all. When the suns activity heats up the planet, the oceans are releasing more CO2 and we see a rising level of CO2. When the suns activity cools the planet more CO2 is "eaten" by the oceans. This cycle has been going on for milions of years. Cold water holds more CO2, hot water holds less CO2. The oceans are constantly "eating" CO2. The oil and gass we use today have been "eaten" by the oceans milions of years ago.
    We have today about 390ppm CO2. 200 years ago we had about 280ppm CO2. Without ouer current level of 390ppm we could not feed todays population. Food production would have been about 14-18% lower with a CO2 level of 280ppm.
    I hope we can get CO2 levels up to about 450-500 ppm. In 20 to 30 years time this will be a presious raw material. We will make fish-food, fuel and building materials from
    CO2.
    When this fact is understood by the stupid majority, it will cause the down fall of UN. UN today is a corupt organisation.
  • Anonymous on September 14 2010 said:
    I think one of the reasons no one gets into this kind of alternative, is that the developers only see it as something to be done at a municipal level. Solar and wind have taken ages to get to where more and more home users are employing them, but I can currently tell you a half-dozen places I could walk into right now and purchase a large panel from. I don't see this process changing my life, because I don't see my county paying to install it at the county landfill. If it were small enough to be accessible to individuals, and it would process only enough to run a generator on, that would be plenty to change my life! No more trash pick-up bill, no more smelly garbage bin sitting outside in the heat, and if I used a good enough generator, no more electric bill. Easily a savings of $300.00 (USd) per month.
  • Anonymous on January 26 2010 said:
    The Swedish people were tricked into boting to abolish nuclear, just as they were tricked into joining the European Union. But they will never abolish the nuclear sector, and as in many other countries the talk is about new reactors. Two reactors were however shut down, and electricity deregulated, and the result is perhaps the electricity price now might be the highest ever.
  • Anonymous on March 19 2011 said:
    "The average production cost of 1.87 cents per kilowatt-hour includes the costs of operating and maintaining the plant, purchasing fuel and paying for the management of used fuel."that sounds like bullshit.
  • Anonymous on July 13 2010 said:
    The price of commodities like oil and natural gas is incredibly sensitive to temperature variations. A large part of this is due to their inherently cyclical consumption patterns. Winter is a season when consumption of heating oil and natural gas increases, thereby rising prices. Effects of Global Warming
  • Anonymous on May 26 2011 said:
    China has a few barriers compared to other super powers but i think this will change one day. I think china has its eyes on other resources.
  • Anonymous on March 02 2010 said:
    I don't know why the goverments of the world are worried about co2 emisions so much; one volcano can produce 100x the worlds collective (co2 emisions for a year.)
    Perhaps the goverments should try legislating against volcanos.
  • Anonymous on October 21 2010 said:
    [quote name="Keith"]I don't know why the goverments of the world are worried about co2 emisions so much; one volcano can produce 100x the worlds collective (co2 emisions for a year.)Perhaps the goverments should try legislating against volcanos.[/quote]How aout giving us the sourse for that staement. 100x seems were all dea the next time a volcano erupts :o
  • Anonymous on April 19 2010 said:
    I am very pleased to have found your site and value highly its informative content which i find invaluable in making investment decisions with particular reference to the Central Asian countries. Many thanks.
  • Anonymous on January 09 2010 said:
    Good article there. Very informative.
  • Anonymous on January 13 2010 said:
    When oil becomes more scarce, the price will rise. Since oil fuels everything in the industrial nations, the cost of everything will rise, and so everyone except the very rich will have a lower standard of living.
    Those who lose their jobs permanently, due to the diversion of money to high oil prices will be the most hurt,
  • Anonymous on January 13 2010 said:
    The "Oil Well" will never run dry. When demand exceeds production, bad things have happened and will happen. Oil is the lifeblood of all industrial societies. Building hybrid cars use oil, everything in the car is derived from oil. The mining to extract the natural resources to build the car. The transportation of the natural resources to where the cars are built. The factories uses oil, the workers use oil to get to work. Everything we do uses oil. Everything we touch, all that we eat, uses oil. There is no replacement. This is in all industrial societies, not just the oil producing ones. Our economies assume massive quantities of "cheap" oil. They will fail without it. Enjoy the time we have left. The meek will inherit the earth.
  • Anonymous on January 14 2010 said:
    Agreed a good article, but there are other factors that will contribute to chaos quite a while before we reach the "dry well" state.

    As covered by on subscriber, it's the byproducts that will affect us much quicker, lubricants being a primary one, greases etc. and then the biggest as I see it is plastics. Every gadget, packaging and interiors of our transport vehicles (aircraft, trains cars) are using plastics, the majority of plastic types come from oil. I am under correction, but we have only made a few types of plastics artificially without the use of oil byproducts. So goodbye to cell phone covers, laptop covers, LCD and plasma screen covers, MP3 players, canopies and windows of aircraft etc etc. the list goes on. I believe we will see the chaos long before the last drop of oil. If we look at serious world events in the past we always seem to wake up at the eleventh hour as generally mankind procrastinates far too long before a reaction is made. The Y2K bug is a recent example just in our technology sector.
  • Anonymous on January 16 2010 said:
    After reading this article I found myself thinking of another article by the leading academic energy economist in the world: MY GOOD SELF. In that article, which will also go into my new book, I argue that the strategy of the countries in the Gulf will be as follows: TO PRODUCE AS LITTLE OIL AS POSSIBLE. Their oil (and gas) will be preserved to be used in the production of oil products and petrochemicals. I taught this sort of thing at the African Institute for Economic and Development planning, but NEVER expected to see it practiced, but it will be practiced. I just wish that the government of Sweden was as smart as some of the governments in the Gulf.
  • Anonymous on March 30 2010 said:
    "The meek will inherit the earth."

    Hrmm, nope. The meek will never inherit the Earth. Whomever controls the next source of power will. And the cycle will continue. It's human nature. Sad, but true.
  • Anonymous on January 14 2010 said:
    Dr Banks should return to teaching out of text books and stay away frm commenting upon something he has no experience with or knowledge of. How accurate were his predictions that world oil supply and demand would come to balance in 1973 and 2003 because fifteen years of manipulated, non-inflation adjusted, low oil prices, i.e., 1958-1973 and 1986-2003, causing oil prices to multiply tenfold?
  • Anonymous on January 15 2010 said:
    I think that this can be easily settled. The only time that I have seen an oil well was from the window of a troop train, and I might have been slightly under the weather. As for textbooks however, my two energy economics textbooks are the best that have been written at this time in history, unfortunately. If there were anything as good, I would be the first to read them.I can also mention that the only time I have written anything about oil that I regretted was when I said that the oil market would be in balance in l985.
  • Anonymous on February 04 2010 said:
    Good point about Saudi Arabia, the same applies to UAE and probably Kuwait; and that's nothing about having seen an oil well, that's about (a) politics and (b) the fact that there are a number of oild producers that think they will be better off in the long term if they hold onto their oil and wait for "peak oil" to drive up the price than to pump it, take the money which is surplus to their immediate requirements, and try and make a return investing it outside of their country.

    On that note, you might be interested in http://seekingalpha.com/article/140546-the-price-of-oil-parasite-economics-explained
  • Anonymous on January 12 2010 said:
    I thought the US navy also had ready access to port facilities in Djibouti...
  • Anonymous on January 14 2010 said:
    Thank you. Excellent article - level-headed and clear.
  • Anonymous on January 15 2010 said:
    Very good analysis.

    How often does Copley write?
  • Anonymous on January 15 2010 said:
    Copley usually writes a couple of articles a week - but you will soon be able to get daily updates of this quality when we launch our FREE daily Intelligence Newsletter next week.
  • Anonymous on February 17 2010 said:
    Great analysis and a lot for everyone to consider. Regarding U.S. power projection in the Indian Ocean, Diego Garcia will ensure that for the forseeable future there is a friendly and well defended supply base for the U.S. in the region.
  • Anonymous on April 23 2010 said:
    I don't think Diego Garcia really matches up with a Large US Base in Australia, for the Navy boys, they will do nuts with bordem, and rember it is still offically UK territory.
    China will push back against, and has the Australian economy under its whim, that the US will have problems convincing Kevin Rudd that any expansion in Western Australia is a go.
  • Anonymous on April 23 2010 said:
    Gregory R. Copley is quite obviously -well educated. Many will be impressed. I am not.

    It is Copley's Kissinger-like militarist-geo-political-economic view of the world, forced by his narrowly-focused education -that are his perspective-blinders. If Copley lacks having read something for a clearer view of what it is he is pretending to understand, it is the more dated views of the older texts he has over-looked, and, even the ancient views.

    The Roman Empire did not end when Caesar was slain.

    The reality with which we all must contend is infinitely complex.

    Copley fails in the typically empirical fashion of today -to account for and place his view against this overwhelmingly-complex-backdrop-of-reality against which all such views, and especially such dated-views as are his, must be always and will always eventually be placed by events as they unfold for these common alchemist-like pundits.

    There is no equation that allows anyone to predict the future, except as we might say that it is impossible to predict. That we know for sure.

    When Copley's far too eloquent views are thus viewed -against this massive backdrop of complexity-, it is clear, he's but a common empirical-shaman predicting a future for which his modest comprehension of the infinitely complex reality that undermines all such predictions lags far behind the entropy of our endless surprise about the future -as it unveils itself- unfettered by the antics of such prognosticators and fortune tellers as abound in every era.

    Read more dated predictions of the past, Mr. Copley, to better understand your own predictions. You are in the company of rank fools.

    Don Robertson, Limestone, Maine
  • Anonymous on July 24 2011 said:
    "The US, through recent discreet diplomacy, has ensured the longer-term survival of the Iranian clerics""Discreet diplomacy?" What a nice term for failure.I was expecting to see the need for an economic engine, instead of the old military engine, to be the key to prosperity in this century somewhere in this rambling essay. But no.China didn't become an economic force because of its military power. They sell to the world. That's how they are in the position to finance the out-of-control spending/debt of the United States.Where oil and energy are concerned, we can sell to the world too if Washington would allow itself to become oil producers instead of oil buyers. The subsequent drop in energy cost, along with ending using food for fuel (ethanol) will be the jump-start for our economy and the world's economy.
  • Anonymous on February 25 2010 said:
    In present day Nigeria, the analysis above is very correct!
    A leadership that will impact on the reality and get results is of utmost importance here. The South Korean example is a justifiable one.
    Incidentally this leadership is zeroing down to one person at the moment.....The Ex-military president. Only him will achieve the Korean model.
  • Anonymous on January 16 2010 said:
    Hmmm
    Is that liberal battle cry I hear.......
    Nope just a tool for the left....
    Shall we dicuss climategate, you know the liars and frauds at Anglia CRU, or the liars and frauds at the IPCC....how much money did algore the warmageddonist make of selling CO2 credits.... Or how about Bristol University statement " There has been NO percentage increase in the CO2 in the atmosphere in the last 150 years.....
    No we can't talk about that.....just dead ducks
  • Anonymous on January 20 2010 said:
    It really appears as though this article was written by the likes of Greenpeace or another similar liberal enviromental group. As far as the Canada's "government is now behaving with all the sophistication of a chimpanzee's tea party" goes... WRONG. Canada has a Conservative government that has led in a fiscally and enviromentally conservative fashion (i.e. we had no Bank failures, etc.). Please look at the trillions of dollars of debt that the US government has poured into bad banks/companies and then tell me who is the chimpanzee!
  • Anonymous on January 20 2010 said:
    Canada could have done more where the environment is concerned, and so for that matter could Pago-Pago and Guadacanal. The point is SHOULD they have done more. People think that Sweden should do more, although it is one of the most environmentally 'clean' countries in the world. I tell you what: Dont listen to "people"
  • Anonymous on January 20 2010 said:
    The Canadian problem harkens back to the creation of the country by the European elites. Canada is a victim of European development extravagances and social policies.

    Reparations are in order...

    Europe owes Canadians massive amounts of reparations for the dastardly work of their forefathers. This article is simply a smokescreen to detract from the secret discussions ongoing concerning the monetization of historical European cultural development excesses.
  • Anonymous on January 18 2010 said:
    Unfortunately your correspondent has failed to explain how the real-estate prices have caused the economic crisis to occur and how we might get over it. If prices of real-estate now rise there will be less demand and more unemployment. If they fall, housing starts will improve but the amount of foreclosures will drive the banks into bankruptcy. In my opinion this latter is the preferable way to go because the sums lost by 10% unemployment over the next 5 years are about 100 trillion Dollars compared to what would otherwise be lost by the banks and 20% of mortgage foreclosures of only about 9 trillion. In otherwords a few fatcats sitting in powerful positions in the banks and the Fed are strangling the future progress of the larger number of potential workforces.

    By introducing a gradually increasing tax on land values and simultaneously taking it off personal incomes the situation could be saved. The price of real estate will fall, the speculators have time to get out of it, the savers time to learn tht their gradually withdrawn liquid assets should be better invested (this time) in industry, not housing or land-value, and the lower production costs due to lower land prices would allow unemployment to cease.

    TAX TAKINGS NOT MAKINGS.
  • Anonymous on January 17 2010 said:
    Crude oil price will be stabilizing once the ample storage tanks floating are emptied and OPEC implemented or adhered to the previous cut production announced in 2009 otherwise we will see again WTI below $ 70 a brl during the first quarter 2010
  • Anonymous on January 20 2010 said:
    In my opinion, an intelligent person should not spend a minute a day being concerned with what is taking place in those countries named in this article.
  • Anonymous on January 20 2010 said:
    Why is that Ferdinand? Did you actually read the article? This neighborhood has a hugely important global impact on the transportation of oil and gas and the VLCC tankers that carry the assets.
  • Anonymous on January 21 2010 said:
    Thanks to the author I do agree most his analysis. Supporting the Republic of Somaliland could be the key to the stability of horn of Africa, specially if the objective is to defeat the pirates and diminish the influence of hardliners in the South of Somalia. As far as AQAP, I think cooperation between Saudi Arabia and Yemen governments and religious scholars can neutralize their influence and effectiveness. Any outside intervention will only make it worse.
  • Anonymous on January 21 2010 said:
    let's not forget how the export numbers are aided by being the leading exporter of death, that being the number one arms exporter in the world.
  • Anonymous on January 22 2010 said:
    I studied engineering in Chicago and L.A., and worked as an engineer successfully for the U.S. Navy, and unsuccessfully in L.A. I have taught (economics) at engineering schools in Singapore, Bangkok, Lisbon and Sydney (Australia). If the U.S. got down to business, as they did during WW2, they might be unbeatable again. What's the problem I ask - although I know the answer.
  • Anonymous on January 22 2010 said:
    This is an interesting article, but it contains two huge mistakes.(1) Nationalization has never cost the Arab oil producers anything - they have gained a tremendous amount, and (2) Even if the German panzers had reached Antwerp, it was the end of the line for the Wehrmacht: Allied airpower would have seen to that, as well as the new tanks (e.g. the Pershings) that were in the pipeline.
  • Anonymous on January 23 2010 said:
    OIL WILL BE MUCH LESS IMPORTANT IN THE FUTURE!

    Truly revolutionary, cost-competitive, energy breakthroughs are on their way.

    Rowan University published experiments demonstrating excess heat. The only explanation appears to be a new source of energy: fractional Hydrogen.

    GEN3 Partners advise Fortune 100 firms. They have reproduced the experiments.

    A barrel of ordinary water becomes the energy equivalent of 200 barrels of oil!

    BlackLight Power states they will demonstrate small prototype power plants this year. PacifiCorp, Conectiv and four small utilities have agreed to purchase more than 8,000 megawatts of electricity.

    Our own, very different, fractional Hydrogen technology is aimed at cost-competitive automotive applications.

    One gallon of water might fuel a hybrid car for 1,000 miles!

    See: Love Affair with Autos Allows a Seductive Alternative - on the website -

    http://www.aesopinstitute.org

    That article includes even more difficult to believe magnetic generators. These will replace many types of batteries, including those needed for electric vehicles. No recharge required.

    Both technologies will allow cars and trucks to become power plants when parked: No wires necessary.

    Vehicles will be able to pay for themselves!

    Once convincingly validated by independent laboratories, these almost impossible to believe technologies will change all of our conventional assumptions about energy, cars and oil.

    A 24/7 development program could make that happen faster than might be imagined!
  • Anonymous on January 24 2010 said:
    Very interesting comment Mark - Fractional Hydrogen does indeed seem revolutionary - but why are we hearing about it only now? I really can't see anything like this coming into large scale use for many years. The Oil Barons are here to stay - well for the forseeable future anyway.
  • Anonymous on January 24 2010 said:
    Bill,

    It is only recently that Rowan published their experiments.

    Our own work suggests that fractional Hydrogen can be in mass production for hybrid vehicles within 5 years.

    Faster, with 24/7 development!
  • Anonymous on January 24 2010 said:
    Mark,for my own benefit I think that I'll perform a simple exercise. FRED BANKS = The leading academic energy economist + first in his class in thermodynamics = ONE GALLONG OF WATER WILL NOT - i.e. NOT - fuel a hybrid car for 1000 miles or a fraction of that. PERIOD. And folks, the important thing in science is not to come up with new ideas, but to get rid of bad old ideas.
  • Anonymous on January 25 2010 said:
    Ferdinand,

    To the surprise of many, there is no violation of thermodynamics involved in fractional Hydrogen. It is simply new science.

    That said, until more laboratories convincingly demonstrate that fractional Hydrogen is real, it is understandable that it will not be believed possible.

    Experiments are always much more important than theory. Two labs have found excess heat. The details have been published. Let more experiments be done. The National labs would be an excellent venue.

    The late Dr. Robert L. Carroll, a mathematical physicist, first mentioned Inverse Quantum States. His 1990 paper with that title begins: “Quantum theory as applied to the atom stops far short of its goal. The philosophy that the least quantum state of an electron in orbit is unity excludes an infinity of possibilities”.

    Randell Mills has pioneered technology based on energy released as the electrons of Hydrogen atoms are induced by a catalyst to transition to lower energy levels (i.e. drop to lower base orbits around each atom's nucleus). Ronald Bourgoin, once a graduate student of Dr. Carroll’s, showed the general wave equation predicts exactly the 137 inverse principal quantum levels Mills claims.

    The late Arie De Geus’s published patent application claimed a unique energy production method, based upon utilization of fractional Hydrogen (f/H).

    Our own work leads towards remarkable energy conversion systems that utilize Energy from Collapsing Hydrogen Orbits - ECHO.

    In engines or fuel cells, Hydrogen is normally burned. It has been demonstrated that hydrogen atoms can release an enormous amount of energy without burning, just as Dr. Carroll earlier suggested might prove possible.

    However, until we can demonstrate that a hybrid car can travel 1,000 miles on a gallon of water,skepticism and disbelief is to be expected.

    My guess is that will take perhaps three years without a 24/7 development program. How much less it might require if the work proceeds around the clock is anyone's guess.
  • Anonymous on January 27 2010 said:
    Before anyone fails to laugh at Mark Goldes' fantastic claims (read plea for funding), please do a quick Internet search on his name. In moments you'll find that he's been trolling the Internet with similar nonsense claim looking for investors (read shills)for many many years.
  • Anonymous on January 28 2010 said:
    While it is true that we have been working toward development of revolutionary energy technologies for many years, we have had some excellent, potentially very important, results.

    An example is room temperature Ultraconductors(tm). These are polymer equivalents of ambient temperature superconductors. They have been the subject of four successfully completed Small Business Innovation Research contracts: A Phase I and a Phase II with the USAF and a pair with what is now called the Missile Defense Agency. Almost 1,000 samples of these materials were independently produced for the Air Force by another firm.

    Our work with fractional Hydrogen technologies only began early last year, although Dr. Carroll, mentioned above, worked with us for 12 years (and predicted a path to room temperature superconductivity back in the 1960s). We have followed Randell Mills work since it was first publicized in the early 1990s. Dr. Vladimir Noninski, skilled in calorimetry and a friend was invited by Mills to visit his lab shortly afterwards and measure the excess heat. He did so and then repeated the experiment at the Brookhaven National Laboratory. Both experiments resulted in published scientific papers.

    Given the hundreds of billions of dollars supporting scientists in pursuit of hot fusion - with little in the way of practical technology produced to date, we are quite proud of what has been accomplished on a relative shoestring.



  • Anonymous on January 29 2010 said:
    The only demonstrable thing you have accomplished is having spent years posting your fantasies and pleas for funding in the talk back sections of websites. Everything else from you is the same as it's ever been: dangling the imaginary golden carrot hoping to find someone with more money then brains.
    You jump from one fantasy to the next each time claiming the the current project is months or weeks away from independent validation and/or production. It's never happened. The safest bets about Mark Goldes are that the current 'technology' will never be validated, much less produced, and that he'll jump to another free energy con within 24 months.
    Please readers, a little Internet searching will show this nonsense for exactly what it is...
  • Anonymous on January 30 2010 said:
    Ultraconductors(tm) as mentioned above, were independently replicated and validated for the Air Force. They were also successfully tested by the USAF at the unit of the Wright Laboratory located at Eglin AFB. The SBIR Phase II Contract was awarded following the Eglin tests.

    We have urged additional independent laboratory tests of fractional Hydrogen and I have repeatedly stated that it is easy to understand disbelief in any energy claim that cannot provide independent laboratory validation. National laboratories are excellent venues for such tests as is EarthTech International.

    The need for alternatives to oil and coal is far more urgent than is generally realized. As this website has recognized, a sharp increase in the price of oil is a probable event in the not too distant future. That would be catastrophic for the world economy.

    We continue to develop radically new energy systems and expect they will make important contributions that will surprise skeptics.

    Those who stare at caterpillars and are ignorant of the fact they often evolve into winged creatures - that might never have been suspected from watching them crawl along the ground - have an analog in those who make such comments.

    Radically new technologies often take a long span of years to ripen into practical products. There are many paths along the way that prove to be dead ends. But, room temperature superconductivity, fractional Hydrogen, magnetic generators, both solid-state and mechanicsl, that convert ambient energy - and others are all moving toward markets. Much more slowly than we would prefer, but perhaps in time to help ameliorate a sharp upward spike in the price of oil that might cause an economic catastrophe.



  • Anonymous on January 23 2010 said:
    Yes, India can become, read the article and found it's very interesting.
  • Anonymous on January 24 2010 said:
    NUCLEAR PLANTS TAKE TOO LONG TO BUILD AND ARE TOO COSTLY!

    Within 5 years electric and hybrid cars may demonstrate a dramatic energy revolution.

    See the article The Love Affair with Autos Allows a Seductive Alternative - on the website: http://www.aesopinstitute.org

    It provides an outline of how future cars might become power plants and pay for themselves, by employing remarkable new technology.

    Visualize electric cars that will need no recharge and hybrid automobiles that will use ordinary water as fuel: One gallon may prove sufficient for 1,000 miles of driving.

    Of course, these statements are almost impossible to believe.

    Yet, as the article indicates, this new science has begun to be validated by independent laboratory experiments.

    Rowan University has published experiments that produce excess heat which can only be explained by a new source of energy: fractional Hydrogen.

    GEN3 Partners, advisors to Fortune 100 firms, have reproduced the experiments successfully.

    Until additional validation is widely accepted by scientists, these incredible breakthroughs will be rejected.

    However, imagine the implications! Sales of cars and trucks will bring the auto industry back to life.

    One of our competitors, BlackLight Power, plans to demonstrate prototype generators this year. They expect to produce megawatt plants by 2012. Six utilities, including PacifiCorp and Conectiv, have agreed to purchase more than 8,000 megawatts of electricity at a cost close to a penny a kilowatt hour.

    Once generally accepted, this will totally change conventional wisdom about energy.

    It could end any interest in uranium or thorium powered nuclear plants.

    The fuel for fractional Hydrogen is water!

    The challenge is to accelerate development of all renewable energy systems that can be implemented fast enough to matter.

    24/7 development programs could bring about an energy revolution that will restore the economy!
  • Anonymous on January 25 2010 said:
    Anybody who wants to believe that nuclear plants are too costly to build should become aware of the thinking in Finland. They are constructing a very expensive plant - because it is custom made - but are already talking about constructing another. The Finnish plant will take 8 years to construct, but eventually plants will take less than 4. For every year under 8 subtract a billion dollars from the cost.
    .
  • Anonymous on January 30 2010 said:
    UNCONVENTIONAL NUCLEAR MAY OPEN NEW SOLUTIONS! New technology may open a path to nuclear energy that is fueled by nuclear waste. That could change the picture in a very positive way.
  • Anonymous on September 02 2010 said:
    That was good despite of financial constraints still the defensive side are keep on doing upgrading. They have a good leaders who continue the modernization of the defense.Aimpointcomp SightsThat is something that they will proud of. This is the sign of good leadership in Indonesia, they are investing their money in the right agency.
  • Anonymous on January 29 2010 said:
    Not a happy picture, but in some ways I would say good-riddance to the dysfunctional American model.
  • Anonymous on January 29 2010 said:
    I agree with td, it is not a happy picture but no less than we collectively deserve. We have made our bed, now it is time to sleep in it.
  • Anonymous on January 29 2010 said:
    Not happy indeed, but let's not give up.
  • Anonymous on January 31 2010 said:
    too many maybe's, perhaps, therefores, should be, might be....I don't think the author is any more correct than the pundits who have been getting it all wrong up to now
  • Anonymous on February 05 2010 said:
    Once again, what is sometimes called "bullying" by unsophisticaed observers, is called business at Stanford and Harvard. Yes, there is 'legal nihilism' in Russia, but there is plenty of that everywhere, to include 'holier than thou' Sweden. Bottom line: Wurope needs that gas, and these irrelevant accusations toward Russia will only succeed in sending it to China.
  • Anonymous on March 29 2010 said:
    There`s difference whether you do business in harsh environment or fulfill Putin`s geopolitics through energy sector. Dividing and ruling europe by building direct pipelines to ones and bypassing others is one example, bullying and not going by contract is another. This certain pipeline might not be necessarily economically viable but as some might know in russia it`s usually zero game when imperialism oriented thinking is involved. Gazprom can be "angel" for those who can look over ethical and moral values, countries closer to russia don`t have that luxury unfortunately cos it`s them to fall victims first. If EU wants to make unified energy strategy and consider all it`s members as own it would be quite easy to put gazprom under it`s terms but of course theres germany, italy and france where they prefer to go over others heads by doing bilateral deals and that`s exactly what suits kremlin because it divides EU and provides using energy as weapon. Some call Nord Stream the new MRP and i agree. It`s much more than just business but "business as usual".
  • Anonymous on August 13 2010 said:
    Morally reprehensible. Now that's an expression I would use about starting a war on the basis of a lie, which is what George W. did. Add to that stupicity: keeping the war going after it was won.I'm 100% behind Gazprom, Medvedev and Putin. They are working for Russia, and not for Brussels - as the dumb Swedes are doing a part of the time. Moreover, I especially look forward to Russia and the United States working together, which is exactly the opposite of what I was promised during my six years in the US Army.
  • Anonymous on February 03 2010 said:
    Interesting comments. Point 10 needs a bit of balance.

    It reinforces the point that China’s economy is completely dependent on exporting stuff to the West. Something has been happening the last few years --- the domestic component of the economy is grabbing the attention of Beijing. They are working now to boost the spending power of domestic consumers. Little known to alot of Western commentators is that China has more than 800 million rural folks and farmers who did not benefit / have been left out of the first phase of China’s economic lift-off of the past 30 years.

    The government is just starting to empower and enrich the villages. The second wave of the Chinese economic boom will focus on the rural folks. If the first wave of 200 million urbanites getting rich is shaking the world, imagine the impact of the second wave. This wave will easily last more than 30 years.
  • Anonymous on February 06 2010 said:
    The EU is a bigger customer for China than is the US,so while it may make us feel good, it is no longer accurate to say "China needs the US,or they'll go broke!".
    Also,you could take away electricity from most of China's population and they would resume their morning activities while burning used paper to cook their breakfast.
    If you took away cable TV from Americans,they would riot and fall into disarray.
    A blind man can see that the US is rapidy collapsing and our military/national policy of stealing oil is proof of our need to secure energy when our currency becomes that which can be burned in a fire to cook our breakfast!
  • Anonymous on February 06 2010 said:
    I hope you are right about iran. It is complete insanity to think that bombing iran would solve anything.The US is toast and it must break the stanglehold of zionist-jewish influence over her foreign policy.they the americans must change course at once and become a purely defensive military,not the offensive policeman of the world.If that would happen there could be healthcare,jobs,respect for them not hate,a cleaner planet(f--- you and your depleted uranium),and most important peace,for it is the US and her zionist masters(read james petras,about zionist control of america and how they do it) that is provoking EVERY regaional conflict around the globe(iraq,pakistan,afghanistan,somalia,yemen,venezuala,cuba,dammit everywhere!
  • Anonymous on February 06 2010 said:
    No question that the US is in irreversible decline and the situation will on get worse and the American population will really feel the pain in this decade. A war with a powerhouse like Iran supported by China, the world's only superpower left is even beyond the realm of possibilities. It would be sheer suicide and a swan song for the dying US economy.
  • Anonymous on February 06 2010 said:
    THE WORLD ECONOMY IS INTERCONNECTED. CHINA IS PLAYING A DOUBLE GAME INTERNALLY THEY USE COMMUNISTIC ECONOMICS EXTERNALLY CAPITALISTIC. U.S.A WILL SOON INTERNALLY IN THE USA IPLEMENT AMERICAN STYLE COMMUNISM. THE FEDERAL RESERVE WILL CONTINUALLY PRINT MONEY BASED ON THE WORLDS WEALTH CAN THE WORLD COLLAPSE NO IT CAN BE A GREATER DEBTOR THEREFORE THE FEDERAL RESERVE ALONG WITH BIS WILL CONTROL CHINA EUROPE ECONOMICALLY. GO AND WATCH THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY. THE SPAGHETTI WESTERN YOU'LL UNDERSTAND WHATS GOING ON.
  • Anonymous on February 06 2010 said:
    you are way too sensible. elites are quite public on thier desire to depopulate the planet. iran/israel war will cause every bit of stupid actions you may imagine. You figure that will be the reason it WONT happen, but alas, this is our last viable opportunity to have ww3, and we SHALL have it. total disruption will get the blame for ensuing starvations, and terrorist reactions will continue unabated till we have our game changing events that give us the nwo. what makes you think we shall get to a population of 30 billion? Or more? inertia? planet managers have no intention of letting inertia rule.
  • Anonymous on February 06 2010 said:
    America like it's people has become bloated and innefectual, what we are witnessing are the death throes of the american abilty to be the moral judge of the world.

    The USA needs to focus internally for at least the next 50 years and get their own house in order before telling the rest of the world how to manage theirs. The chinese ascendency appears to be unstoppable and it will be interesting to see how the Zionist's attempt to gain control of china.

  • Anonymous on February 07 2010 said:
    HO!HUM!

    *BBG IS THE ONLY ANSWER FOR ALL!





    *..... BETTER BUY GOLD!
  • Anonymous on February 07 2010 said:
    The West will "not contest dominance of the major oil and gas fields". Disagree. Are you saying that natural instinct will abate? Are you denying all previous historical examples that show changes from one power to the next only happen after an historical battle of sorts?
    I am inclined to believe the comment by 'Bleak' as being a more realistic assessment.
  • Anonymous on February 19 2010 said:
    Another issue to consider. If stagflationary pressures do emerge in the US and world economies generally then the real value of oil will fall. This will heighten tensions between oil producers and the west.
  • Anonymous on March 01 2010 said:
    nice articles,your assesment about president zardari, of pakistan,is partially wrong,he is neither weak,nor going to quit before his full term of five years.problems are being faced by almost all the heads of states and governments,in the developing world.president zardari,s fight against terrorism,is a plus for the west,moreover,he is fearless and dependent ally,who has to be recognised and rewarded,particularly by the western countries,EU,EC and others.
  • Anonymous on May 17 2010 said:
    Agree with most of the 10 predictions... but NOT Israel. When pushed into the corner of destruction from Iran, they will attack, in 2010.
  • Anonymous on August 23 2010 said:
    [quote name="weng"]Interesting comments. Point 10 needs a bit of balance.It reinforces the point that China’s economy is completely dependent on exporting stuff to the West. Something has been happening the last few years --- the domestic component of the economy is grabbing the attention of Beijing. They are working now to boost the spending power of domestic consumers. Little known to alot of Western commentators is that China has more than 800 million rural folks and farmers who did not benefit / have been left out of the first phase of China’s economic lift-off of the past 30 years.The government is just starting to empower and enrich the villages. The second wave of the Chinese economic boom will focus on the rural folks. If the first wave of 200 million urbanites getting rich is shaking the world, imagine the impact of the second wave. This wave will easily last more than 30 years. [/quote]the east is red...china's east is america
  • Anonymous on August 24 2010 said:
    The author is a dangerous climate change denier and is thus guilty of participating in the largest on going mas murder in human history of people and nature at large.Moving away from fossil fuel addiction and toward renewable energy, conservation and smartgrid reduces future damage and leaves more energy savings to be spent on cleaner non energy consumption.
  • Anonymous on February 10 2011 said:
    No one knows for sure who is behind what! This whole economy recession thing must have been planned a calculated by the people who are in control. The western Elite. China is the Laborer and USA&Europe are the masters who are in control. However with time the Laborer is learning the master tricks therefore if the master wants to stay a step ahead of the laborer he must outsmart him if he wants to remain a master or else the Slave will become the master.Peace.LONG LIVE THE WEST.
  • Anonymous on February 04 2010 said:
    As a former brilliant teacher of macroeconomics, I decided to ignore this budget, even if I do not believe that it is "outragiously egregious". In the perfect world of Econ l01 it would be regarded as a first draft, and if any spin was necessary it would be reserved for the final version. And author, saying that Mr Ben doesn't recognize something 'macro' just doesn't sound right.
  • Anonymous on February 03 2010 said:
    Very very funny. An endorsement by Berlusconi is like the kiss of a vampire. Both are the kiss of death. Still I look forward to this proposal being officially floated. Just when you thought bureaucrats could not be more stupid they outdo themselves.
  • Anonymous on February 03 2010 said:
    One sided drivel - why do they have a wall? Did anything happen before the wall was there? Why was it built? Compare it to the Berlin wall? Are you a fool?

    Israel has a democracy while these other countries have kings.

    why does egypt have a wall? Answer that.

    Truth is that all the arabs hate each other and kill each other. Look at gaza, lebanon after the war. Can't blame israel for that. Look what happened when Israel gave back Gaza.

    Come on. Israel would take peace anytime. Everyone is against them. WhÝ wouldn't they want it.

    People are generally morons.

    Your article proves that.

    EU would be lucky to have them. The EU and UN are a bunch of scum.


  • Anonymous on February 03 2010 said:
    To Breshuu. If the EU are a bunch of scum then what does that make Israel if it wants to join them? Scum too, yes? As for your remark about people being "morons" I presume you don't include yourself in that category; however, sadly, it seems to me by what you've written you would be included yourself in that category, as the article doesn't prove or disprove at all that the EU would be "lucky" to have Israel.
  • Anonymous on February 04 2010 said:
    Letting Israel join EU would be worse than letting Turkey join EU. Israel would have been convicted of war crimes if the US did not have veto power in Security Council.

    EU would lose the its core character if Israel joins EU. Even the thought of that is revolting.
  • Anonymous on February 04 2010 said:
    Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who was on an official visit to Israel, said Monday that his "greatest desire" is to see Israel join the European Union.
    He wasn’t the first to think of that idea. Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief said last year that his organization's ties with Israel are stronger than those with candidate country Croatia:


    “There is no country outside the European continent that has this type of relationship that Israel has with the European Union.


    "Israel, allow me to say, is member of the European Union without being a member of the institution. It's a member of all the programs of the union, and participates in all of them. And I'd like to emphasize and underline, with a very big, thick line [that Israel participates] in [helping us deal] with all the problems of research and technology, which are very important."


    "I am sorry to say, but I don't see the president of Croatia here," Solana continued, referring to Stjepan Mesic, who is also attended the three-day conference.


    "His country is a candidate for the European Union, but your relation today with the European Union is stronger than [our] relation to Croatia.” The EU and Israel have committed themselves to establishing a partnership which provides for close political and mutually beneficial trade and investment relations together with economic, social, financial, civil scientific, technological and cultural cooperation. The Action Plan concluded with Israel has an objective to gradually integrate Israel into European policies and programs. Every step taken is determined by both sides. There is also a financial assistance element to EU-Israel cooperation - Israel is eligible for €14 million in European Community financial cooperation over the next seven years.
    http://israelfinancialexpert.blogspot.com/2010/02/is-it-possible-that-israel-will-join.html
  • Anonymous on February 04 2010 said:
    The ruling classes in the "arab" countries would love the follow-on "even-handed treatment" cash from the EU. The USA would start to worry that EU weapon sales to the rest of the world, would be the hi-tech equal of the USA. And if Israeli scientists succeed in hooking up European and Russian space programs...Maybe when NASA's astronauts arrive again on the Moon, (or Mars?), they'll be welcomed with a cup of tea.
    But many of us aren't all that excited about joining the EU, your economic policies are frequently no-growth and little future investment.
  • Anonymous on February 04 2010 said:
    Berlusconi is just an attention-seeking fascist, what he says is irrelevant, he is an embarrassment to the EU. Two points, (1) I don't think the EU would contemplate Israel as a potential member until they signed up to the International Criminal Court which USA and Israel both "unsigned" after not ratifying it, in 2002; if they did then it is highly likely that they would get prosecuted for non-compliance with the Geneva Convention (as might USA if it signed - and UK might yet), whether such prosecution would be justifiable will of course never be known (2) Israel does very well out of the permanent "state of war" thanks to massive support from the US taxpayers, I doubt if it would be economically viable without that support - ergo it is manifestly in it's interests to keep the "war" going.
  • Anonymous on February 04 2010 said:
    This government does not understand freedom of markets produces superior results for all - producers and consumers.
  • Anonymous on February 04 2010 said:
    They understand it all right. It is not possible to be that stupid by accident.
  • Anonymous on February 04 2010 said:
    For something in the renewable energy arena that is completely different, read this article about BlackLight Power: www.americanreporter.com

    The star of the story is fractional Hydrogen. Our own firm is developing automotive applications.

    Using fractional Hydrogen, one barrel of water becomes the energy equivalent of 200 barrels of oil.

    It appears the hybrid cars powered by fractional Hydrogen might travel 1,000 miles of a gallon of ordinary water.

    To see one potential sequence of applying revolutionary green energy technology in the automotive sector, read about the Love Affair with Autos at: http://www.aesopinstitute.org

    This work appears to be accelerating. My personal goal is to see it develop on a 24/7 basis.

    That might help to avoid a rise in the price of oil that could lead to economic catastrophe.
  • Anonymous on February 04 2010 said:
    Too much emphasis is being placed on GREEN at the present time, and so the wrong people have suddenly gained access to a slice of the cake that they don't deserve. Of course, in the long run the answer to our energy worries is going to be somewhat more nuclear and a LOT more renewables and alternatives. Think about it colleagues, and ignore the cranks and hustlers in this game.
  • Anonymous on February 06 2010 said:
    This is completely wrong-headed, but I don't blame the author because he's just another victim of the way economics has been taught for so long.
    Commodities - like other products of nature - rightfully belong to all of us. The results of productive activity (drilling oil, refining it, distributing and selling it) belong to the producer. Tax the first 100% and untax the second. Speculation will vanish because it will be taxed away (we could hold an annual auction if no experts can be found to reliably price oil). Companies won't sit on valuable land waiting for the price of oil to go up before drilling. Oil - and every other commodity - will achieve rough equilibrium (oil going from $147/barrel to $35 in a single year, when the demand varied maybe 5% is absurd). Governments will be funded (oh, we should also tax the abuse of nature - air, water, land pollution), and true producers will be rewarded for their labor.
    This Geonomic, or Georgist, solution has stood the test of time (130 years) and has worked everywhere it has been tried - that is, until greedy speculators overturned such measures).
  • Anonymous on April 22 2010 said:
    Our markets have been hijacked by manipulative speculaters who bring no value, they call themselves masters of the universe and they only take. The Governments have promised to clean up this mess let's hope they do as they say.
  • Anonymous on February 11 2010 said:
    David, you are correct when you call the Three Mile Island accident the worst civilian accident, but as it turned out it was small beer. And I suspect that the new reactors of the Chinese will be Gen 3 reactors, and so popular concern is of little 'scientific' significance. Let me suggest that you spend some time with CNN adverts. As a gentleman from Siemens says, the electricity age is on the horizon, and so those nuclear plants are essential for the Chinese people - regardless of what you say they are worried about. My new energy economics book also says a few things about this issue.
  • Anonymous on February 06 2010 said:
    If the Chinese index is based on container freight then that would imply higher prices for shipping finished goods vs the BDI which is the price of shipping raw materials (iron ore and coal mostly). So the difference would be understandable.
  • Anonymous on February 25 2010 said:
    Aluminium and Copper in various shapes like ignots,bars,profiles,plates and wires may be shipped in containers.Steel like beams and plates is more complex due to tonnage and dimensions and are in general shipped as brake bulk in large quantities,even as full shipload in the range 5-15.000 metric tonnes.
    Best regards
    Shipper
  • Anonymous on February 09 2010 said:
    All the more reason to accelerate development of radically new alternatives that have the potential to supersede oil.

    Small amounts of ordinary water will become a major fuel.

    The article titled Hydrinos at www.american-reporter.com/ is a good place to learn why.

    The story is about fractional Hydrogen. Our firm is also developing this almost unknown, new source of energy.

    The goal is powering hybrid vehicles. A gallon of water is expected to provide 1,000 miles of driving.

    We call this ECHO(tm) - Energy from Collapsing Hydrogen Orbits.

    ECHO makes possible SPICE(tm) - A Self Powered Internal Combustion Engine.

    To learn more, see: www.chavaenergy.com Look under the heading how?

    There you will also see other revolutionary technologies that promise to replace oil.

    Two independent validations of fractional Hydrogen have taken place. More will help to increase acceptance of this hard to believe new source of energy.

    One barrel of water will replace 200 barrels of oil!

    Hybrid cars and trucks running on ECHO, along with other revolutionary technologies, once they are thoroughly validated, can become power plants when suitably parked. No wires needed. The vehicles might pay their way by selling electricity to the local utility!

    Who will not want such a car or truck?

    A 24/7 development program can move this remarkable alternative into the market rapidly - and perhaps help to avoid the sharp rise in the price of oil that is here suggested.
  • Anonymous on February 11 2010 said:
    That's right, Mark, but the difficult thing is to decide which new alternatives should receive attention, and which should be completely and totally dismissed. As they say in real science, 'the important things is not to come up with new ideas - there are always plenty of those around; but to get rid of bad ideas as quickly as possible'. I was always a good teacher, but when I found this out, I became a great teacher. Of course, my students who couldn't get with the program might have different ideas, but everybody can't be satisfied.
  • Anonymous on February 11 2010 said:
    "Simmering difficulties." What a crock.President Obama may eventually be judged wrong in many things, but if he feels that the US and China are natural allies, he is absolutely correct. Russia is another natural ally. Those two countries are rich - though perhaps in different ways - and they have a lot to offer the U.S. I see no point in elaborating on that here, but I don't think that a soap opera about "difficulties" in necessary where this topid is concerned.
  • Anonymous on February 11 2010 said:
    "Simmering difficulties". What a crock. Those difficulties are dreamed up by journalists and busybodies looking for something thrilling to say. China IS a natural ally of the United States, as is Russia. They are natural allies because they are rich - though perhaps in different ways - and in the coming trade and energy wars they can get richer if they work together.
  • Anonymous on February 11 2010 said:
    Really? China is going to become the 'Big Bad Guy' on the block? Now, instead of quietly they are loudly going to be building the Asian Bloc?
    First of all, there are many reasons that China is hip deep in dollar debt. Not the least of them being that they need America to get back to the consumption levels it was at in 2007. China is still at least a decade away from having a large enough, and wealthy enough, middle class to support its self.
    Second, the current administration is far from a Leftist government. Most of its policies are nothing more than carry overs from the previous administration. While it did manage to shove through a 'stimulus', it has been far from effective in anything else, for or against China. Obama can show whatever he wants to China, but the administration can do nothing to really back it up, and China knows it. Furthermore, an alliance with China, as of late, is political suicide. No one in America wants to be seen with China too close to them. I understand that there are many here in the States that are too close, but that is another commentary.
    Third, Russia is down, but not out. Russia/China relations have always been strained, at best. The only reason that Russia is playing nice now is to try to get themselves back into the Super Power position they once held. China knows this as well. Once the timing is right, their pact will falter. This is why I don't think that China is going to actively recruit nations into any kind of pact, especially with Russia. Pulling apart a pact with other nations involved will make it difficult for either country to get things done, and may even lose some to the West, something that neither wants, for certain.
    Finally, regardless of their resources, no one (China, Russia, or the US) wants a Middle Eastern country under their protection, implied or otherwise. None of them are stable enough, with themselves or their neighbors, to give them that kind of protection. They could be quickly dragged into WW3 by taking that on. Not to mention how a pact like that would embolden Iran to make moves that no one wants to see happen. The US is in too deep with Isreal. And with Isreal/Iran dialog constantly escalating, while it might be fun to thumb their noses at the US by allying with Iran, the responsibility is too much for either to really bear.
  • Anonymous on February 12 2010 said:
    Lets hope the spent nuclear fuel rods don't make the resultant shale oil radioactive (if planning to directly heat the shale with the rods), let alone the fact that water or any inflammable liquid less dense than the oil, would still have to be used to force the created oil out. Interesting.. just had to check it wasn't April the 1st today.

  • Anonymous on February 12 2010 said:
    A MORE PRACTICAL INVENTION MIGHT USE THE FUEL RODS ON SITE!

    We are developing a method of using the waste (fuel rods) to generate electricity without needing to move the rods away from their present locations.

    If it proves successful, and it does appear that it will, this is a far more practical, elegant and economic solution.

    It will also end any need to build new nuclear power plants.

  • Anonymous on February 12 2010 said:
    I took basic training twice in the US Army, at Fort Jackson and Fort Ord. If I remember correctly, I was called a fool at least once every week. In civilian life I have mostly avoided that designation, although on one occasion I was sitting at a table in Vienna with a group of researchers and businessmen, and one of the latter called me a fool because of my belief in oil shale. And do you know something: he was probably right.
  • Anonymous on February 15 2010 said:
    800 billion bbls - 20 million bbl/d = 400 yr supply ????
    Is there something wrong with my brain? Seems more likely about 110 yr. (calculator not at hand)
  • Anonymous on February 20 2010 said:
    A large Chinese designed "Pebble Bed" reactor in the Tar Sands, powered buy Canadian Uranium, can produce just the right kind of heat source required to extract the oil from the sand cheaply and cleanly! Americans and Canadians ravaged the area with poorly thought out and very shady technology and got an environmental backlash! This time, the problems must be resolved with a long range future in mind, (planning, God Forbid!) and only China has the intellectual powers, competent, (none-weaponized) nuclear engineers, and the cash flow to resolve the problem - but: they lack incentive and they are able to buy easy oil on the world market by bidding against the Americans with stronger currencies (Yuan) and winning every time! Perhaps a co-operative venture with a less conservative government in Canada will resolve the issue, but for now, Steven Harper, Prime Minster of Canada, is spread Eagled before the Corporatists of America, jar of his own Vaseline (bought by his wife) in hand, begging for a rough exploitation for a small commission and paltry royalties on the "take" and is seen as positioned correctly by the Canadian hewers of wood and carriers of water for the forces from the South to take full advantage. Perhaps the "Bloc Quebecois" will show some opposition to this ruination of the country, and favor a consortium with China, who by the way, have bought up a good portion of the "Tar Sands" anyway.
  • Anonymous on May 19 2010 said:
    Why don't we just use the fuel rods to heat up water, make STEAM, turn a Turbine, and generate ELECTRICITY. This seems like an easy answer, so it must be much more complicated than that. I think that using the fuel rods to heat something else up to remove oil from shale is asking for more pollution from run off or some other kind of leak that may hurt the environment or someones' water supply. Lets just make steam!
  • Anonymous on February 12 2010 said:
    NUCLEAR WASTE IS EXPECTED TO PROVIDE POWER ON SITE!

    The desire to build new nuclear plants may soon fade away as it appears we have invented a way to utilize the fuel rods that have been removed from reactors to generate electricity at highly competitive cost.

    Prototypes need to be constructed and tested, but the theory appears sound.

    This is an elegant solution to the problem of nuclear waste. It will not have to be removed from where it is today.

    It also is likely to produce cost competitive energy as well as a large number of well paid jobs.

  • Anonymous on February 12 2010 said:
    The story of nuclear is just beginning. Siemens has announced that a couple of hundred plants ae on the drawing boards, or will soon be under construction, however exact numbers are unimportant. The Chinese and Russian governments are not in a position where they have to allow street-corner experts to determine the form of their energy supply, and so they will be giving the rest of the world a look at what it means to have access to large amounts of inexpensive and reliable electricity. I say good luck to them.
  • Anonymous on February 16 2010 said:
    He's right, of course, at least that the cost to obtain energy can only increase as the availability decreases. But his closing point is that the price of oil pre-ordains the "disastrous macroeconomic event of the past and coming two years." Clue: Spend until you run out of money, then stop spending. Seems to have happened. Grind to a halt because the fiction of money has ground out. Now, if you want to spend, there is less fiction around to fuel the spending, so it gets real. Third world countries have been doing it the real way for centuries.
  • Anonymous on February 19 2010 said:
    Hmm. I think I can say that if any of my students turned in a document like this, he or she would immediately be given a failing grade. It may not be wrong, but it is hopelessly amateur. And by the way, this is what energy economics is all about, and not just in the United States
  • Anonymous on February 20 2010 said:
    You say that the CEO of Shell pointed out the potential of natural gas. What else could he do. I would be very surprised indeed however if he concluded that the United States has 100 years of reserves. That sounds too far fetched for even a member of the Shell executive suite. At the same time I'm ready to admit that we really and truly need that gas - though not here in Sweden. Nuclear and hydro are fine.
  • Anonymous on March 22 2011 said:
    The next generation fuel for automobiles will be natural gas. Electricity is an inefficient fuel for cars. That may change in 50 or 100 years. But it will not change soon. Natural gas vehicles already exist. The technology is proven...the cost would quickly become low as the market changes. All other solutions are too expensive and not ready.
  • Anonymous on March 22 2011 said:
    I'm afraid the Japanese are going to need a lot of natural gas to replace generating capacity lost when the Fukushima reactors were ruined. Natural gas fired gas turbines can be set up rather quickly, compared to anything else. It may well be that the best we can expect is for the Japanese to use natural gas-fired turbines for a few years, but also (if somehow they can raise the necessary capital) construct new nuclear power plants. Since you can use natural gas but not nuclear power to propel a car (unless the car is pure electric and your local power plant is nuclear), using NG to generate electricity may well be like using a luxury cruise ship as a bulk cargo carrier.
  • Anonymous on March 23 2011 said:
    I strongly believe that due to the situation in Japan, Nuclear energy would suffer a draw back. More consideration would be given to Natural Gas, and Natural gas would become more important in the energy mix.
  • Anonymous on March 23 2011 said:
    Be careful what you ask for, Asekhame. A possible problem with natural gas is, the more we use, the more LNG carriers you're going to see on the high seas. Even the most passionate supporter of nuclear energy would agree that natural gas, whatever safety issues it may have, at least isn't radioactive. But beware: A terrorist attack, an attack by pirates, or an accident involving a huge LNG tanker, could result in a very powerful explosion. Such a disaster would result in an awful lot of people not wanting LNG tankers anywhere near where they live.
  • Anonymous on February 19 2010 said:
    Interesting to read this article about Libya, because when people ask me about that country, I tell them that it can't miss. They have everything they need to eventually come out on top, to include location. As for needing more foreign investment, maybe they do and maybe they don't - in the short run. In the long run they can get along fine without it.
  • Anonymous on February 19 2010 said:
    As long as there is the possibility of finding oil in Libya investors will keep going there. Nothing in your article mentions anyone making a loss from operating in the region.
  • Anonymous on February 20 2010 said:
    Libya is a challenging but potentially rewarding market. With proper planning and foresight, international companies can take advantage of commercial opportunities in almost every sector, secially oil and gas. We need between $7-10 billion in new investments in the oil and gas sector to reach our stated production goals. Generally sepeacking, In every oil company whether or not nationalized there are a foreign invisters and they have been working in Libya since the 1955.. In my opinion we need international investors and they need to understand Libya.
  • Anonymous on February 20 2010 said:
    I've spend a bit of time studying the natural gas market, though not lately, and I'm ready to believe that things are different with shale gas than with shale oil: there might be a lot if gas available. But 100 years is out, at least on the basis of the present evident. I can also mention that I am a Democrat, but with the exception of the loan guarantees for nuclear - which should probably be greatly increased - I wonder if this government really comprehends what energy menaces are up ahead.
  • Anonymous on February 20 2010 said:
    Peak oil may help a few sectors and firms, or for that matter a lot if the price of oil does not escalate. But if it means a genuine escalation, then the wolf is back. The undulating peak that CERA talks about is almost certainly based on a very high oil price impacting on the macro-economy, which recently happened, followed by a decrease in demand for oil that reduces demand abd price - MAYBE. There is more, of course, but I'll save that for some other time.
  • Anonymous on April 12 2010 said:
    i'm sorry. i think everyone here is deluding themselves if they think there's any future in the continuation of the "economic" (energy use, land use, chemical use e.g.)policies we've enjoyed over the past 50+ years. To put it the simplest way: the planet is inhabitable due to the actions of previous species (mostly plants) which captured the excess carbon (among other chemicals in too rich abundance) and sunk it in the earth over millions of years. Now we've reversed the process (the industrial revolution) and we're putting that carbon (next up, too much methane) BACK into the atmosphere at ever increasing rates (and we're already witnessing the changes in the weather globally and locally).





  • Anonymous on February 23 2010 said:
    Batteries will be superseded in the future by, presently hard to believe, magnetic generators.

    In 1926 Hans Coler demonstrated a magnetic generator, tapping a new source of energy to German University professors. Werner Heisenberg, a Nobel physicist. stated the following year: “We could utilize magnetism as an energy source”. In 1937 a 6 kilowatt version was shown. The German navy later supported the work. After WWII, Coler was the subject of a Report by British Intelligence, which was declassified in 1980, and is available on the web.

    Promising magnetic power generation prototypes, with and without moving parts, remain the subject of many years of Chava research and development. These devices convert ambient energy never before commercialized. They will understandably remain difficult to believe, prior to evaluation by an independent laboratory. Following completion of development and validation, commercial production will be on the horizon. An early goal will be to demonstrate the ability to eliminate the need to plug-in, a plug-in hybrid.

    Replacement of batteries, including those utilized in electric vehicles, will follow.

    These generators do not need to utilize neodymium, another material that is expected to have serious supply problems.
  • Anonymous on February 23 2010 said:
    Fantasy fantasy. Always some secret soon to be revealed magic source of unlimited power.

    Where is all the lithium needed for fusion reactors coming from?
  • Anonymous on February 24 2010 said:
    Lithium is only one of many rare earth type minerals that are going to have serious supply\demand issues as we move to so called green technology. China holds the majority of the supply of rare earth minerals used for making magnets in generators, silica, etc and its mining of such minerals is to say ungreen is an understatement, China decimates the landscape in its mining operations.
  • Anonymous on February 25 2010 said:
    Good story and a great heads up to producers and investors.
  • Anonymous on February 25 2010 said:
    Please keep us posted. Great article.
  • Anonymous on February 25 2010 said:
    What about Gold and Silver?
  • Anonymous on February 25 2010 said:
    Any chance they're shipping overstocks and making gains? We know there are building halts so it does raise questions about new demand. But I'm wondering if they bought low...made some deals in Europe, then ship some tonnage every once in a while without crashing prices. Then build up stocks again at slightly lower prices later?
  • Anonymous on February 23 2010 said:
    I was surprised to see my home state of Arizona not in the top ten. The northern half of the state blows hard. Of course the readings were probably taken at the Phoenix airport. ;-]

    Ray @ New World Solar
    http://newworldsolarpower.com
  • Anonymous on February 23 2010 said:
    Interesting. The other day somebody asked me to do some research on ethanol, suggesting that I start by "following the money". I declined, because I do not want to lose my faith in humanity. The same thing is true here. I just finished making some calculations on wind turbines in the North Sea, and I really wonder if it is true that, being citizens of perhaps the richest country in the world, some Norwegians have decided to go on a vodka diet.
  • Anonymous on February 24 2010 said:
    Great news as I live close by. When I am not here in Iraq that is...What about an EMPLOYMENT opportunity?
  • Anonymous on February 28 2010 said:
    It’s great to see the Department of Energy putting stimulus funds to work: the $1.37B loan guarantees to BrightSource Energy will move forward some really promising solar and thermal projects. It was shame to see BrightSource forfeit their plans in the Eastern Mojave, but hopefully these funds will allow them to pursue new projects.

    Researching how to make your company, product, or next project more Green? Go to www.greencollareconomy.com for sustainability white papers and the largest b2b green directory on the web.
  • Anonymous on February 24 2010 said:
    This is what I call a superb article. It's exactly the kind of article that I will use the next time I teach energy economics. And I hope that certain people read this article very carefully, because there is still too much foolishness going around about oil.
  • Anonymous on February 24 2010 said:

    It would appear our elected leaders are once again spinning a yarn, you paint a bleak picture. Without incentives to companies spending billions of dollars on new technologies in locating and extracting oil from the North Sea to continue doing so, we shall become a third world country.

    The onus lies with the elected goverment officials and advisors to perform better.Clearly the party's over now we've got to clear up the mess.
  • Anonymous on January 19 2011 said:
    It's now 2011 and I can reveal that the NPD production figures for 2010 were 1.8 million bbpd compared to this paper's forecast of 2 million bbpd.The NPD recognise the decline and are trying to force companies to pump more.
  • Anonymous on February 26 2010 said:
    Why dont these oil conglomorates for once do the right thing and invest in the stability and infrastructure of these countries first! A $1 billion investment in the Delta region for its development before anything else will bring far larger dividends for Total in the long term. www.oilandgaspress.com
  • Anonymous on March 10 2010 said:
    quote -
    Its reaction will determine in large measure whether Asia repeats the awful bloody history of Europe during the 20th century or – as we sincerely and profoundly hope – shows it is possible for two economic giants, living in close proximity, to find a way to co-operate and complement, rather than destructively compete, with each other.
    unquote

    I opine , based on my own understanding as an Indian and one who has closely interacted with Chinese in China at various levels over the last decade, the chances of complementing each other while contesting each step on the way forward .. is imminent. Mutual respect , though grudgingly accepted , will egg each on.... never at moment of peace , always looking over each others shoulder, if one slips the other immediately takes advantage , to reluctantly accept with consternation.
  • Anonymous on February 27 2010 said:
    Very interesting piece. This is the way that I would like for my students to present information. But as for understanding the Japanese market,well... When I began teaching finance, I thought that I had all the answers about that country: I was one of the people who thought that the Japanese economy was going to show the world miracles (and I might have put that in the editions of my finance book that I taught from). Where certain things are concerned (e.g. nuclear), I still feel that way, but unfortunately it's impossible to be sure.
  • Anonymous on August 30 2010 said:
    First of all, we need some important background information about interest rates. Typically, short-term interest rates are lower than long-term interest rates (think of the rate on a 15-year mortgage vs a 30-year mortgage). This is because there is less risk to the lender in a short period of time than in a long period of time. A lot can happen to the borrower during those extra 15 years. That's twice as much time for the borrower to lose a job, become ill or have any number of other possible life events that make it difficult or even impossible to pay back the loan. Therefore, for two loans that are similar in every other way, the one that has the longer payback period will have the higher interest rate.Structured Investments
  • Anonymous on February 27 2010 said:
    30 years ago, immediately after the publication of my oil book, I attended a conference in Vienna at which I gave one of my 'killer talks', in which - among other things - I claimed that shale oil would change the future oil supply prospects for those of us on the buy side of the market. Later the same day a gentleman informed me that I didn't know what I was talking about, because I apparently didn't understand the water/environmental problems associated with obtaining shale oil. That gentleman was correct and I was wrong. Things might be different with shale gas, at least I hope that they are, because we need that gas in order to buy the time that will be necessary to install the optimal future energy structure.
  • Anonymous on February 28 2010 said:
    Oh yes, Henry Waxman is a real scholar. he has extensive geological knowledge. Oh, wait -no he doesn't. Everything in life has a risk. The risk of not getting at our own oil is that we will suffer as a nation and will contributed to pulling down the world economy. Now that climate change is a proven fraud Democrats need to continue to wage war against industry, opportunity and the private sector. this is just in keeping with the obstruction to anything that could possibly help Americans lead better lives.
  • Anonymous on February 28 2010 said:
    We that are concerned are not concerned for no good reason. The results of Industry controlled search for shale gas exploration has already reaked havoc on whole communities rural and urban. The People are told to sacrifice their investment in property value for a few monthly royalty dollars. Most in the urban environment this means less than $50.00 per month. Can't even off set your gas charge back bill with that. The drinking water in spite of anything the Industry declalars to the contrary has been contaminated and NY has good cause for concern as do all communities that are not being vigilant on this because our USA has absolved the Industry from compliance with basis federal protection. How fool hardy. The fact is the BIG O & G Industry leaders need to and can operate IF they where true Americans in an environmentally protective manner wqith current technology but would rather lobby for limited protection to protect their own profit. Capitalists Yes Americans working for America's ENergy Independenc not so much.
  • Anonymous on March 02 2010 said:
    Will this affect Silver and gold prices?
  • Anonymous on March 02 2010 said:
    Concise, informative article!
  • Anonymous on March 02 2010 said:
    Same as Mike's question; what impact will this have on Gold & Silver? Negative or positive?
  • Anonymous on March 02 2010 said:
    Impact on precious metals directly should not be too big. There are a couple things that feed into it though. First is some investors seeing a price drop in base metals could see it as deflationary and flee to cash, selling off silver and gold. Second is other investors seeing this could be more convinced of the end of the world as we know it and load up on the safety of gold and silver. Expect bigger some fluctuations both ways for a while as the various sides enter and leave the market. More profound in it's effect on precious metals is the underlying economic trends such as the ongoing depression, changes in market demands for certain goods, monetary inflation of fiat currencies, etc. Precious metals will almost certainly go up in prices measured against paper currencies because of these.

    The big thing to watch out for is if the public demands big government to step in and save them through all the up coming chaos, there is a potential that they could force everything to a cashless/electronic system to better control things, and make barter, including trades/purchases using precious metals, illegal, causing the demand for such to go way down. That would have the effect of killing a rather large chunk of the precious metals trade as a lot of investors would no longer to "waste money" on something "no longer of value".

    Most of the infrastructure is in place, just waiting for the proper crises needed to gain public acceptance of the system. In other words, they are trying to do an end run around investor's fears about confiscation by the government, by making it far less atractive to a larger part of the public.
  • Anonymous on March 02 2010 said:
    I think this would be Negative impact on copper zinc gold silver IS IT?
  • Anonymous on March 03 2010 said:
    If gold and silver are about to become worthless due to electronic funds transfers, why are so many emerging nations stockpiling? There are far too many consumers out there who don't or will never use credit cards. Don't worry about the potential for a paperless global economy. It won't happen.
  • Anonymous on March 03 2010 said:
    Those who think it won't happen ignore the fact that it's already majorly transferred over already anyways. Credit card purchases, debit cards, bank wires, Paypal, eGold, etc, all paperless. I'm not saying gold and silver will be worthless. The government is not going to make it illegal to own either, just illegal for private parties to use for many purposes. They want more control over you so they can tax you more. This gives them a tool to do so.
  • Anonymous on March 03 2010 said:
    gold has limited industrial application; its value beyond that is its universal acceptance as a store of wealth, but that is as fleeting as the trust and acceptance, it has no other intrinsic value (just a shiny useless relic). Paperless/electronic transactions are already the preferred means of financial settlements. Those who foresee the end of the world to undig their gold might find nobody willing to trade useful things for it. How'd you transact over distances with gold, by courier?
  • Anonymous on March 03 2010 said:
    On what base the paperless e-system will be founded? Will be in the mercinessless of the bankers with manipulation of the markets and big big bubbles of fiat money? You are not going to play the electronic game for a long. Gold standard is the fair real money for 6,000 years, all the others are schemes and dreams
  • Anonymous on March 04 2010 said:
    Oh no, the electronic system will not last more than a few years, and then be gone. Gold and silver will once again become the money of choice. But you and I know the extreme capability of government leaders to choose to try the stupidest route first. The electronic system will happen, and sooner than one might think. But no, it won't last more than about 3-8 years before coming unglued like all fiat currencies before it have.
  • Anonymous on March 06 2010 said:
    Trade cannot continue in worthlessness.
    E-Trade, E-Banking, Fiat base, and others would seem possible. However, the longevity seems a lot shorter than supposed. I look to 1-2 years at most, too many pressures, and not enough substance for investors, etc.
    Business as usual doesn't allow the theft level enjoyed by the present systems, causing my skepticism.
    Might only last a matter of days or until the people find out about its true worth...
    Maybe.
  • Anonymous on March 08 2010 said:
    For 5000 years govts have been claiming they have a magic wand that will make gold and silver worthless. "Better stock up on paper/fiat/e-money now." Guess what? An ounce of gold still buys what it did back then. Just ask the Chinese. They're on their 5th fiat currency now.
    And now we're gonna have e-money. Digits on a computer screen. You won't even be able to burn it to stay warm. A silver quarter still buys a gal of gas or kerosene just like it always has, and always will.
  • Anonymous on March 02 2010 said:
    "Earlier this year, Iraq completed a round of 10 long-term contracts with 15 global oil giants to develop the country’s oil resources. Britain’s BP and China’s China National Petroleum Corp., for instance, signed a 20-year contract to develop the Rumaila field in southern Iraq, which alone has more than 17 billion barrels of crude oil reserves.

    The announcement this week concerned an award to TPIC, the foreign exploration and production unit of state-owned Turkish Petroleum. TPIC, along with Halliburton and Weatherford International, is also bidding on a separate contract to drill another 56 wells in Rumaila, according to news agency reports."
    And the Iraq war wasn't about oil......right.

  • Anonymous on March 02 2010 said:
    Author, you say that Saudi Arabia already has the capacity to produce in excess of 12 mb/d. Where did that number come from?. At least 2 million of that is surge production - i.e. production that be maintained for only a short time. Of course, it wouldn't make any difference what kind of production it is, because the Saudi's are too smart to export more than 7-8 mb/d at the present time. The really interesting question now is exactly how much oil do they intend to produce and export in Iraq. Better start thinking about that before the international macroeconomy begins gets up steam.
  • Anonymous on March 08 2010 said:
    Everybody doesn't have the belief in shale gas that some of the contributors to this forum have. I happen to be one of those everybodies. Of course, if the evidence indicates that not only is the gas there in very large quantities, but it is exploitable to the degree usually claimed, then I will go along with the crowd. And by the way, the over zealous talk of shale means at least two things to the Russians: plan to sell more gas to China, and think more deeply about the GASPEC that might appear before the end of the present year.
  • Anonymous on March 04 2010 said:
    Intervening states can benefit from regional economic activity even if they are not using electricity. The entire utility system is an expensive gift to energy producers and utilities need to realize that their customers are the consumers, not the producers.

    Now an arguement could be made against deals with wind companies where they are sheltered from the consequences of lower than expected production - it would depend on whether the losses from this practice are enough to outway benefits from this form of energy. Frankly, if you are not going to have a market driven system from start to finish then the parts which are controled by the government need to take the interests of the people into account. In addition to the direct price of energy, factors include, the over all price of fossil fuels (which could be lowered by renewables and affect both the economy and security) and air quality.

    Wind is far from my favorite energy source and all renewables should be able to function without large government subsidies but when fossil fuel electricity producers have transmission lines run right up to their door because of government funding they hardly have a right to whine about others getting this also.
  • Anonymous on June 30 2010 said:
    Now an arguement could be made against deals with wind companies where they are sheltered from the consequences of lower than expected production - it would depend on whether the losses from this practice are enough to outway benefits from this form of energy. Frankly, if you are not going to have a market driven system from start to finish then the parts which are controled by the government need to take the interests of the people into account. In addition to the direct price of energy, factors include, the over all price of fossil fuels (which could be lowered by renewables and affect both the economy and security) and air quality.
  • Anonymous on July 08 2010 said:
    Texas is known as the state with the largest wind energy capacity in the United States, and if it were a country, it would rank sixth in the world. On the other side of the coin, the most recent data from U.S. Energy Information Administration shows that the state of Texas is being the largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the country, over 60% higher than California which ranks second in emissions but has a population nearly 50% higher than Texas. With such a record, it is no surprise that Texas Governor Rick Perry rejects the scientific evidence linking greenhouse gas emissions and climate change and marched the Environmental Protection Agency in federal court to prevent regulation of greenhouse gases.
  • Anonymous on March 05 2010 said:
    Changed the world. I sent a short article to someone yesterday with just that possibility in mind. If shale does 'change the world'. it will mean a GASPEC by the end of this year. As for Russia being priced out of the European market, that kind of thinking belongs in a movie magazine.
  • Anonymous on March 09 2010 said:
    And the "truly safe currencies" are?????
  • Anonymous on March 09 2010 said:
    Your illuminating essay begs a question ..... and answer remains unclear. Which country(ies) and their currancies offer "real protection? (Brazil ?, Canada ?, Australia ?, India ?, China ?)or the answer is solely in commodities?
  • Anonymous on March 10 2010 said:
    Yes, which currencies are a store of value?
  • Anonymous on March 10 2010 said:
    Silver and gold,junior miners and good agriculture stocks. If you can't trust any of this worlds governments not to lie about the value of their currencies how can you trust a piece of paper they print with no intrinsic value just your faith in them. Just my take for what it's worth.
  • Anonymous on March 10 2010 said:
    Sure glad I live in Canada. We will also be hurt by the US economy, but we are still in a lot better shape than most.
  • Anonymous on March 05 2010 said:
    US Oil consumption = 20 million barrels a day.

    5 days = 100 million barrels

    50 days = 1 billion barrels

    4.3 billion barrels buys us 260 days supply. Give or take.

    Expensive. Low EROEI
  • Anonymous on March 06 2010 said:
    Excellent article. If I were in Vegas, and if I was a Kurdistan oil investor, and I wanted to place on bet on the outcome of the election that would benift my investment the best, who should I put my money on?
  • Anonymous on March 07 2010 said:
    What's the problem? Favoring foreigners is what the U:S. is all about these days, and probably has been for a number of years. My American citizenship, veterans status, lecturing skills, professorships and books don't mean beans at most American universities when some nice foreigner asks for a job.
  • Anonymous on March 07 2010 said:
    Beyond Gaddafi? It is realistic, sensible & prudent for the "West" to work towards engaging positively with the 1.5 billion Muslims in the World...& increasing.The current corrupt politicians ("Watchmen"?) suppressing Muslims on behalf "Western" Corporations & politicians will soon be replaced by more enlightened leaders demanding better standards of living for their masses & controlled release of their natural resources.The "West" must learn to have a standard of living realistic enough to match its own limited natural resources.They can no longer loot other peoples' resources to live an unrealistic standard of life. Why should Muslim masses be denied the benefits of sensible & controlled marketing of their own natural resources? This injustice has to be put right..sooner than later.
  • Anonymous on March 07 2010 said:
    The author of this contribution provides a very important piece of information about Libyan gas resources. As for the rest of it, I'm uncertain. For example, the sooner the twisted opiniona of somebody like President Ronald Reagan are completely forgotten, the better it is for all of us.
  • Anonymous on March 11 2010 said:
    A recent article in an Oslo paper gave a nice resume about shale gas. Apparently there are people around who think that Russian gas will not be needed west of the Russian border. Fortunately, gas is not needed in Sweden, because if it was I would have to find somewhere else to live. Shale gas may turn out to be just what the doctor ordered, but on the other hand it may be something else. If it is 'something else' and the Russians are told to sell their gas somewhere else, then somebody could be in deep trouble eventually.
  • Anonymous on March 10 2010 said:
    This author asks and correctly answers the right question: where are we going to get the energy to support a sustained upturn? There are some people who say that we can get it from shale gas, however if one of my students were to say that, he or she would be in serious trouble. The case for abundant shale gas has not been proved! More interesting are the people who think that the OPEC decision makers are fools, and do not know how to manage their invaluable resources. Well, in a weak (macro) market the price of oil has reached $80/b. Question: what is it going to be in a strong (macro) market?
  • Anonymous on April 05 2010 said:
    The people at the OPEC decision making level may not be morons, or any of the scumbags that just looted the market for that matter; they are however, dishonest, money-grubbing thieves that will take the market, therefore the people, for all they can wring out of it/them before whatever unrelenting collapse there is coming. Prepare for WW3, it is already cooking. Conventional war is the final result of our energy wars.
  • Anonymous on June 13 2010 said:
    Is there any argument why Shell teamed up with petrochina?
  • Anonymous on March 12 2010 said:
    CAES is only going to work in very limited locations where they already have caves, mines and the like to use. Why is this getting so much attention when battery technologies are so much better? Vanadium Redox Batteries for example: The Vanadium Battery: The Ultimate Energy Storage Solution - http://tiny.cc/UNo8J
  • Anonymous on August 29 2010 said:
    The geoplitical issues on Somaliland Republic are interesting and would like to notify me any international and regional deplomatic issues in the future.
  • Anonymous on March 17 2010 said:
    I'm not sure anyone pays attention to the mainstrean financial media anymore, so the propaganda distribution machine is broken and the sentiment measure based on them are mistuned. Don't worry that little problem can be fixed.
  • Anonymous on March 19 2010 said:
    Nuclear energy is one thing, and global warming quite another, but even so I like to see them on the same stage, because I happen to believe that nuclear energy is an essential component of the optimal energy picture: somewhat more nuclear energy than we have today, and a very large helping of renewables and alternatives. BUT please try to remember that without nuclear, the others are not going to give us what we want, and need.
  • Anonymous on May 19 2010 said:
    It is too expensive and needs government bailout...too much heat potentional and thus too high of a serious "Oppps!" factor...too hard to clean up, which is built into the design to happen at the end of its less than 50 year life...and has to have laws changed in order not to violate them towards the end of its "safe to operate" life span. Its an economic burden on utilities even without an accident!
  • Anonymous on June 07 2010 said:
    Thanks for your comment Marci Davis, but I have to inform you that you are completely wrong. What I can't understand is why - when I am lecturing - I do not get a chance to correct some of the completely wrong statements that are made about nuclear.
  • Anonymous on June 07 2010 said:
    Hydro is probably cheaper than nuclear, but nuclear comes next. I won't bother to explain why though, because the best explanation in the world is generally unwelcome. I wonder why though persons are so concerned with nuclear safety. The equivalent of a nuclear catastrophe takes place every year in the global coal sector.
  • Anonymous on July 04 2010 said:
    In case you have not heard, Finland's parliament passed - by a large majority - a bill to introduce two more reactors into the country's energy system. Of course, the reactor being constructed now is way over cost, but it doesn't make any difference. Sometime after the middle of this century, and maybe before, Finland's nuclear sector will ensure that it has the lowest cost electricity in the industrial world.
  • Anonymous on August 03 2010 said:
    Nuclear is a huge economic boondoggle, without bothering to consider the waste issue. Guys like Prof.F Banks who go around spouting rubbish cost numbers should be ashamed of themselves :oops: (hint to Banks - stop using cost data from existing nuke fleet and then blithely assuming same costs going forward when we know costs have exploded - look at Finnish EPR for example). New nukes cost $7.5-$10B a pop, take ~8 years to build (on top of 5-10 years to get permits). Then add in decommission costs (that run into the billions) and you have an industry that is unsafe and not cost effective with other "clean" energy such as Wind. Solar will soon be cheaper as well, and we won't have to worry about another Chernobyl or 3 Mile Island...
  • Anonymous on March 21 2010 said:
    You say that there are other markets besides China. What are you thinking about: Pago-Pago and Guadacanal? One way for a country to go backward economically is to ignore the Chinese market. Incidentally you seem quite impressed by General MacArthur. I respect what he did during the first world war, but he must have been the absolutely worst American general during the second, which was proved by his being relieved during the Korean War. And as President Truman said: "I'm sorry I waited so long".
  • Anonymous on March 18 2010 said:
    To describe Peak Oil as a "theory" is like describing sunset as a "theory". When something happens over and over again it is called a "phenomenon" and not a "theory".

    I would invite interested readers to review, not the claims of the "oil industry" or the prognostications of "experts", but the historical data on production and consumption to see if you can spot any "peaks".

    The British Petroleum Statistical Review is hardly a left-wing, enviro-kook publication. Rather, it is a careful compilation of oil industry statistics put together by one of the largest companies in the business.

    These data can be reviewed in a series of interactive data graphics at the Energy Export Databrowser:

    http://mazamascience.com/OilExport

    Even a quick review of nations like Indonesa, Egypt, the UK, Norway, Mexico, Argentina, ... will demonstrate that peaks are a phenomenon, not a theory.

    What about the US and the nations we import from? Poke around the databrowser and answer these questions for yourself.
  • Anonymous on March 18 2010 said:
    The writer seems unable to distinguish between stock and flow - it's not the size of the tank that matters, but the size of the tap. Even more fundamental is the energy returned over energy invested (ERoEI), which has steadily declined from 100:1 in the heyday of the 1930s in Texas, to about 15:1 today. Once you spend a kiloJoule of energy to extract a kiloJoule, it's no longer a resource - no matter how much is in the ground.
    This cornucopian 'thinking' is the main reason why we are entering the greatest crisis the human species has ever encountered. Watch Chris Martenson's "Crash Course" on the web for a very detailed analysis of our predicament.
  • Anonymous on March 18 2010 said:
    This article is long on belief, short on facts and devoid of economics. As one writer above points out: "It's the flows, stoopid". As for all the silliness about shale (kerogen - not oil) and the tar sands (coal oil? - never heard that before) I would point out that there is no possibility whatsoever of producing shale. Sure there is a little liquid here and there and quite a lot of gas, but it will never be produced in sufficient flows to make a difference. The dollar economics while relevant are not paramount. The energy economics are the key factor and producing shale produces zero net energy. Tar sands produce at a ratio of around 3 - far too low to sustain us. Shale and tar are just a distraction. Conventional crude production has been stuck at around 73m bpd since 2004. Tupi will make no difference to that. We need to find the equivalent of a new Saudi Arabia every 2 years. Natural gas can provide a useful buffer, but its't oil.
  • Anonymous on March 18 2010 said:
    The writer is onto something very interesting. I would like to see how far he can take it.

    The stale old Peak Oil arguments go all the way back to the early 1900s. He is correct that we have burned far more than total reserves were believed to be -- over and over.

    There is indeed a crisis that we are facing, but it has nothing to do with global warming doom or peak oil doom. It is something much more dangerous.
  • Anonymous on March 18 2010 said:
    You know that the "cooling scare" of the 1970's wasn't widely spread? It's a myth. Yes, a myth. Some people believd in it, just as some people today beleive antropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases have no connection to global warming. Myths. And honestly, you haven't grasped what peak oil is about. You start talking about running out of oil, but that's not what peak oil is about. Sorry, you haven't "debunked" anything at all, you're just spreading myths/disinformation/propaganda.
  • Anonymous on March 18 2010 said:
    "But now the "experts" claim "Global Warming." It's all just a theory, like Evolution, but after so many "experts" parrot the "truth" in the media, and even colleges and universities begin teaching it as truth, then it becomes "truth,' even when at best it's a 50-50 shot. I’ve read that 63% of those surveyed were “concerned” about Global Warming. Geez, don’t people even know how to ask the right questions anymore?"

    So you are a denialist of the Theory Evolution, Anthropogenic Climate change and Peak oil. Nuff said! BTW, "Theory", in science, doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
  • Anonymous on March 18 2010 said:
    To hold us the Bakken Fields as proof that peak oil will not be a near term problem is absurd. Even the article the author referenced shows the USGS believes there is less than 4 billion barrels available. Since the US consumes about 9 billion barrels a year, this wouldn't even last 6 months.

    The 8 billion barrels in the much touted Tupi fields will not make a dent in the 30 billion bbl/year global oil demand.

    The article author is long on wishes (or agenda), but comes us short on analysis, at least for this article.
  • Anonymous on March 19 2010 said:
    The article is long on assertions and short on facts. Fact: 70% of the world's giant oil fields are declining. At a 7% annual rate (EIA).

    Good luck Mr. editor. You will need it

    And evolution is just a theory? We need to send you back to high school ...
  • Anonymous on March 19 2010 said:
    1: Yes, I have heard of the Bakken formation. There is 4.3 billion theoretical barrels available from it. North Americas Annual usage is ~9 billion barrels, I don't see a problem solved here.

    2: Shale oil, is NOT light sweet crude, by any stretch of thee imagination. It is difficult and energy intensive to extract, and will not bring you $16/barrel oil. More like $216 !

    3: All the major oil fields in the world, including Gawar in Saudi Arabia, are in decline.

    4: Remember the October stock market crash of '08? It directly followed $120 a barrel oil. Why was there $120 a barrel oil? Because demand was outstripping supply. You can expect a series of oil shocks over the next few years, assuming the economy can even survive it a second time!

    5: Yes, the government is probably shall we say being "economical with the truth". The government doesn't yet openly admit or discuss peak oil. Why is this? Because, there is no real solution to peak oil, unless you plan to exterminate around 6 billion people.

    6: I see little math in this article to back up your centuries of oil production claim.

    7: If the world is "awash with oil", why has Russia already staked a claim on the Arctic, because there MIGHT be oil there. Why does the US want to drill in ANWAR. And why is the possibility that Iran (a major oil producer, near other oil producers, i.e Saudi Arabia) might be building Nuclear weapons such a problem?

    Because, we are ALREADY running seriously short on oil.

    Les
  • Anonymous on March 19 2010 said:
    Jonathan points out that when something like production peaks happen over and over, it's called a phenomenon, not a theory. Fine, call it what you will, Peak Oil is a phenomenon, much more palatable than a "crisis." It's like the phenomenon of a rising sun; my point exactly. Peak Oil has been a phenomenon every year since 1910, only a few fall for the "crisis theory" and get up in arms.

    There's no doubt that we are approaching a Peak Oil problem that cannot be allayed without more vigorous alternatives, but the point of the article: Is it a "crisis?" One commenter blows things out of proportion by stating we need to find a Saudi Arabia oil field every two years, why? Do we use that much? Another commenter says "Once you spend a kiloJoule of energy to extract a kiloJoule, it's no longer a resource." Really, unless you double your money on it, and what is it I'm burning in my car? Another says I haven't debunked anything because I talked about running out of oil instead of Peak Oil specifically. Where do you get your numbers from?

    Other commenters like Will are reading into the article what they wish, like "the Bakken Fields as proof that peak oil will not be a near term problem." No, there is no one thing that will do that, as the article states. But that's why the article is so lengthy, to give a sampling of the dozens of finds and technologies and new methods that reduce a "crisis" to a phenomenon. No, the Tupi field will not make a dent in world demand, but will five Tupi fields? Any assertion that Tupi will not be enough is no less likely than finding 20 or 50 more Tupi fields.

    Several commenters get upset when you pick on their favorite Theory and suggest it may not be fact, then dismiss the entire article because it too is suggested to be a theory rather than a crisis. A little short on logic aren't we? If you can't rebut, just label them to dismiss them, right? Do you just post to show your frustration? Might it be that Global Warming is just another phenomenon that happens every 50 or 100 years or 200 year cycles? All the supercomputers in the world can't count all of the presumptions they made for input into the fastest supercomputer to compute an answer within 300 years for the Global Warming Theory. And you view this answer as fact?

    We know intuitively that Darwinism can accomplish some things, but not others. I have no problems with the evolution Darwin originally proscribed in biological science, e.g., bacterial resistance to antibiotics, but when the ape came out of the swamp, and they started teaching this to my children as fact in science, that became an attack by Humanist ignorance (or design) against me. Elephants do not evolve from rabbits. As an extension of the Big Bang theory, and Old Earth of 4.5 billion years, also purported by the Evolutionists, unsupportable; completely outside the field of biology. The evolution of man, Old Earth, zero evidence from the Evolutionists, all a myth, easily refutable from the geologic record or fossil record. Then they go on to say that Noah’s Flood is a fable or myth, which tries to make the Bible false, and becomes an attack on foundational and religious beliefs with a theory that is more myth than science.

    While the original biological evolution by Darwin has its uses, I'm surprised the Evolution of Man is still debated; call any scientist at any of the top 100 universities in the world and ask them. Use your cell; I'll wait.


  • Anonymous on March 20 2010 said:
    Peak oil is not about the future - it's about the past. It's about the arrival of the geopolitical peak. Non-OPEC oil, or about 60% of world output, has apparently peaked and so OPEC is now in a position that they have dreamed of for thirty years. Moreover, they are now smart enough to realize their strength. To have an oil price of $80/b in a weak global macroeconomy tells the entire story. Mr Eidson should make some attempt to understand it, rather than dealing in fantasies. And incidentally, they are only doing what they are told to do in the last chapters of the microeconomics textbooks.

  • Anonymous on March 20 2010 said:
    Be interesting to see what happens to world oil supplies if Iran and Israel nuke each other. It won't be pretty.
  • Anonymous on March 20 2010 said:
    The Bakken deposits haven't proved anything about peak oil. What has happened to the noble art of censorship that the editors of this site allow such an absurd statement to be published.
  • Anonymous on April 09 2010 said:
    I personally feel that over the next few years/decades we will see oil price occilations correlated directly with economic boom/bust cycles. These cycles will reduce additional oilfield discoveries by eroding the capital of oil companies slated for exploration. These oscillations will continue until major economies collapse or until the ruling class are unable to maintain the myth of a sound economy.

    I don't think that we will be able to meet the resource demands of growing world populations and the inevitable increased standards of living which the developing world is striving to achieve.

    I do think that people like ther person who wrote the above article who attempt to assure others that there is "no crisis" are exacerbating the problem. The longer we put off dealing with the consequences of oil demand outstripping supply, the worse off we will be as a species.

  • Anonymous on April 14 2010 said:
    Dennis, you are, I suppose, within your epistemological rights to argue against peak oil (though I do not think you are right) but to then tie this together with young earth creationism as you appear to do in your follow up post is to debunk your own article by associating it with a demonstrably false position. The kinds of people who follow the peak oil issue tend to be interested in geology. These are the wrong kind of people to try to convince that the earth is 6000 years old particularly if that supposition is not salient to the peak oil issue –and it isn’t. To make matters worse you seem to be confusing evolution with the age of the earth. The earth was first determined to be old by 19th century Christian geologists because the evidence was overwhelming, not because they were trying to accommodate evolution which had not yet been posited as a scientific theory.
  • Anonymous on April 18 2010 said:
    1.Why doesn't anyone have a striaght answer as to how much oil there is to go around? I've heard everything from we have more than we need, to we will run out in the next few years. I can't commit to any "theories" because I don't want to look like a crazy person holding a "the end is near" sign. I also don't want to be unprepared for change. 2. I think about what life would be like without a reliable energy source, and it is back to the olden days before cars, electricity, and ,oh my god, internet! Then I start to think, well maybe people wouldn't be so stressed out about the office because they were farming, building, and just living all day instead. I know that's not all there is to it, but you get what i mean. By the way, should we be trying to sustain this crazy, stressful, overly excessive society? Whether we have oil or not? 3. And in the case of alternate energy sources, if we try to sustain our lifestyle with energy sources that could never compete with oil, that could be more stressful than giving in and changing society to meet our supply of energy. If we think about it that way, it is not a "crisis." It's change. 4. Dennis competely through all credibilty out of the window when he mentioned that science was trying to disproove religion. It doesn't try. It just does. Get over it.
  • Anonymous on April 20 2010 said:
    i am just beginning to educate myself about peak oil and its implications and I am trying to be open to all of the arguments. What concerns me is that it only took a few coherent arguments supporting the peak oil "phenomenon" to turn the author to completely incoherent, rambling nonsense. I would be able to think more clearly about his position if he made his points with more facts and less emotion. and for the record, just because you went there, I definitely don't believe that God and science are mutually exclusive. Thank you Colin for helping me to figure out what Mr.Eidson was referring to with the old earth rambling. Is there some reason I need to be caught up in this evolution vs. religion crap to figure out when peak oil will hit?
  • Anonymous on April 28 2010 said:
    Peak Oil is an argument in support of a PERCEPTION. The perception is one of "artificial scarcity" because there are too many unknown factors to assert any REAL scarcity. Scarcity, whether real or artificial, is what creates profits. If you tell someone your product is abundant and available everywhere, why should they invest in your business or even purchase your product? If we had to do so we could reduce our oil consumption by 30 percent in a very short time, perhaps a few weeks or months. How? By MANDATORY car pooling. Make it a $100 fine if there is LESS THAN two people in your automobile. Turn the thermostats back.Close down shopping malls. God knows we have more than enough places to shop nowadays. There are heaps of ways we can reduce our consumption.How much of a supply crisis would we have if we reduced consumption by 30 percent?
  • Anonymous on April 29 2010 said:
    This is my problem with everyone that is on the “myth” side of peak oil. They have lots of anecdotal references, but no hard facts.“One commenter blows things out of proportion by stating we need to find a Saudi Arabia oil field every two years, why? Do we use that much?”To maintain any form of worldwide growth, even at 2-3% yes. This doesn’t take into account China and India. They could each easily add 100,000,000 cars over the next few years as their emerging middle class wants the American dream. Not to mention all the consumer products that requires oil. Think about this – the US is 5% of the worlds population, yet we consume 25% of the resources. If you do the math – addChina and india, you now have 40+% of the worlds population. If the consume as the US does you now have 8 times the consumption. We currently use about 80,000,000 bbls daily, multiply that by 8 and you have 640 million daily.
  • Anonymous on April 29 2010 said:
    Another commenter says "Once you spend a kiloJoule of energy to extract a kiloJoule, it's no longer a resource." Really, unless you double your money on it, and what is it I'm burning in my This is just a stupid reply. If it takes 2 gallons of oil to get 1 out of the ground, why bother? Why not just burn the 2 gallons? This is oil company logic – we can keep selling oil and making a profit – the end result is the same, you run out.
  • Anonymous on April 29 2010 said:
    We know intuitively ……….. foundational and religious beliefs with a theory that is more myth than science. I don’t know what the hell you are talking about here, other than it sounds like the ranting of a religious zealot. And I think therein lies the problem. All those on the myth side seem to have an agenda (they are in oil or are politicians) or are religious wackos that expect god to come to the rescue instead of taking personal responsibility.As to the tar sands, shale oil etc, these are environmental disasters. It takes almost as much oil to harvest as what you get. Hydrogen is another myth, and shows your ignorance on the subject. Hydrogen, much like a battery is a storage device, not fuel. You have to create the hydrogen from something. The most viable is propane. The rato of propane to hydrogen is something like 1100 to 1.
  • Anonymous on May 24 2010 said:
    Recently I saw a projection of a world population of 20 billion by 2030. That alone should make one realise that peak oil is real. The only thing that would preclude that would have to be a return to the dark ages in economic decline or a world wide plague of biblical proportions. Remember that in the 1950's King Hubbert predicted US oil production to peak in the mid 70's which it did around 1975 (OPEC must have been reading Hubbert as well) The USA used to EXPORT oil. Now we import about 70% of our consumption. One would be smart to learn about Hubbert and his work if one was to understand to what Peak Oil actually referrs.http://www.hubbertpeak.com/All I can say for a fact is the major oil company which I work for is installing new lines for refining Algae. I dont think they would be investing those millions if there was nothing to it.
  • Anonymous on June 29 2010 said:
    what are you talking about?? :o If you consume as much oil as you produce, you're not actually producing.You seems to say that the we will not run out of oil, it's just going to be terribly expensive.I say, open your eyes and look at the big picture:expensive oil on an economy which has run for 100y on cheap oil => many business models won't be relevant => bankruptcies => loss of jobs => less consumption, including oil => declining oil price and traded volumes => investments won't be made into new very high tech oil harvesting => we are going to run out of oil faster.it might be that the market will die instead to taking in higher oil price.
  • Anonymous on July 27 2010 said:
    Mr. Eidson has NO grasp of the issues: he doesn't understand that Peak Oil and running out of oil are two different things, nor does he grasp EROEI. That last is enough to ease all my concern that he might be on to something.Confused: science doesn't disprove religion - many notable scientists were (and are) religious believers (whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc.).Dennis: I'm a zoologist who accepts the theory of evolution (as a good, workable theory, a work in progress). I'm also a committed Christian. I don't "believe in" evolution. A good scientist does NOT "believe in" theories. They accept them, test them, modify them as new data becomes available. Your data about oil is not new to us, nor is it game-changing. Peak Oil is still undebunked.
  • Anonymous on August 15 2010 said:
    The peaking of any finite resource is simply fact. What's at issue is what the effects of destabilization and rising costs of petro fuels and feed stocks will be. When considering such effects and the feasibility and possible economic scenarios in relation to alternative energy sources, one must consider really big factors like Net Energy, and human standards of living.Personally, I hope that your sentiments turn out to be correct, that there will be no supply side resource shortages in my lifetime. Unfortunately your article rather serves to reenforce the notion that effective mitigation of resource limits is not likely to occur, due lack of understanding. :-P
  • Anonymous on August 18 2010 said:
    The global cooling scare was never of a magnitude close to that of anthropogenic global warming today, nor was it ever backed by a significant number of qualified scientists. It appeared in one issue of Time magazine based on research that got torn to shreds by its peer reviewers. I recommend watching the videos from youtube user potholer54 about the issue.
  • Anonymous on September 18 2010 said:
    Ask yourself a simple question: Why, why, why would Saudi Arabia, the US and other developed countries, be drilling off-shore, where it's 10x more expensive to get oil from under-water fields, than it is to get it under the land, if it has so many other new, cheaply accessible places to discover and extract oil from? It DOESN'T. There is NO NEW EASILY EXTRACTABLE CHEAP AND ABUNDANT OIL TO FIND. That is what peak oil is about, NOT about what's left. It's about how expensive is it to get what is left....and the expense to get it goes up and up and easy oil diminishes. A business doesn't go after a resource in the most expensive way first! It choosest the most expensive option last! Of course! And if it does, then that tells you that the easiest and cheapest ways of getting oil are exhausted. SIMPLE!!This means that the world will suicide itself because it will become too expensive to obtain energy, and consumption is already outstripping resources. Do the math.
  • Anonymous on September 18 2010 said:
    Ask yourself why the developed world is going after oil under places like the polar ice caps. Ask yourself why we and others are going after oil under thousands of feet of ocean water. Ask yourself why we are boiling tarsands to extract oil. It is VASTLY more expensive to develop, exploit, and use oil from these sources, and yet all the world, including Saudi Arabia, are digging wells to get at oil under the most expensive circumstances.Companies don't operate at a loss. They operate to make money. If oil is being sought after in these places, than by DEFINITION, the easiest and cheapest places to find oil are USED UP. They wouldn't be going after oil in these places unless it's a last resort.We're just used to thinking of oil rigs off-shore and in other places because we've never thought deeper about them.Remember- tarsands, shale oil, oil rock, are NOT cheap, liquid oil. They are even more expensive to get..
  • Anonymous on November 12 2010 said:
    Developing oil sites and keeping the price of oil high are to different things. Remember oil is a control factor. The more sites you control,the bigger the influence you have on the world stage. Your confusing just making money with the other political aspects of controlling the worlds energy supply. Why do you were in the middle east? why did we not have a type of Marshal plan for alternative fuel that would have really kitted there butts? Could you imagine the billions spent on war diverted this way . their would have been a renaissance.
  • Anonymous on November 19 2010 said:
    "I would think that within this century, some yet undiscovered energy source or method of extracting energy from hydrogen or even something as crazy as a water fuel cell will be discovered."A BIG bet. Until then, let's tread on our reserves carefully, OK?
  • Anonymous on December 03 2010 said:
    I can explain the problem here. The author lacks basic math skills. The USA consumes roughly 7 billion barrels of oil per year. Somehow the author managed to translate a U.S. Geological Survey assessment of 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of oil in the Bakken Formation into "There’s enough crude to fully fuel the American economy for 40 years straight." I have to thank you for making clear the complete insanity of your position. Here are the numbers http://www.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_home#tab2.What we have here is a massive system of just in time production and delivery of petroleum that has been allowed to grow like unchecked athlete's foot. We also have a lot of the basic life support systems of our society tied to this flow of petroleum. The system's elasticity, its give, is in the waste factor. So I feel there is room for optimism.But the author is a tool.
  • Anonymous on January 04 2011 said:
    I love how the writer doesn't take into consideration exactly how much oil is used everyday, which is approximately 50-60 million barrels worth. Now, some reserves are said to hold billions, even as much as 600 billion...but even 600 billion barrels would only sustain the earth for approximately 11 days. Now I don't know about the rest of you, but we as a whole...and by whole I mean Earth, need to drastically change our rate of consumption or we will face a true crisis bringing the onset of living equated to the North Koreans. A living of famine, drought, fighting, hostility, starvation, disease....just to name a few. Pretty much anything that is created takes oil, even the clothes you wear. I am truely scared for the impending crisis we will have to face, but I know nothing will be done to stop it.
  • Anonymous on January 04 2011 said:
    Peak oil isn't about depleting 100% of the world's oil supply. All of the easiest oil to tap has been extracted. Usually the last 30% of a reserve isn't extracted because it is too costly. You have to consider energy return on energy invested(EROEI). Peak oil is about the peak of cheap abundant oil. Everyone wants to live like Americans and that is not feasible. People are just too stupid and greedy and don't even think about their own kid's futures.
  • Anonymous on January 04 2011 said:
    I think the real danger of Peak Oil is not going to come from the scientific facts. Those are fairly well documented and difficult to debunk. The moral issues that surround Peak Oil will force many to be blinded to the harsh realities. If you knew when you were going to die how would you act will no longer be a hypothetical question. If a person decides to avoid answering this question it will be answered for them!
  • Anonymous on January 05 2011 said:
    Political peak oil, courtesy of Obama and company. Feels just like the real thing if you don't bother to think about it.
  • Anonymous on January 06 2011 said:
    Currently there is about 6 million barrels per day of excess capacity sitting idle. We are far from global peak oil, if there ever will be such a thing. I have read countless books, websites and blogs about the pending oil peak and ensuiing disaster.Peak oil has been preached since we started using it on a industrial scale. Peak oil in America is mostly due to us not exploring enough due to environmental concerns. That's why we go offshore. (Wait till oil prices go through the roof, then everyone will very quickly open up their backyards for drilling). I can find more proof of incorrect predictions about impending oil doom, collapse and peak oil than actual proof of it being true or ever coming to fruition.There is more than enough energy in the world (and I'm not specifically talking about oil, but energy in general), we just have to develop the technology to extract it. Like a Saudi oil minister said, the stone age did not end due to a lack of stones!
  • Anonymous on February 07 2011 said:
    Debunking the 'myth' of peak oil? Wishful thinking-that we are going to find *more* oil-is NOT debunking 'peak oil'. Optimisism that the energy crisis will not happen in this century--that's not debunking either. In fact, it's grimly humorous to dismiss a crisis as something our grand-children will be afflicted with-not us.One would have to prove Hubbert's 1950's statements as erroneous, but he was proven correct, right? Oil production 'peaked' in the USA in the early 70's, contrary to expectations. An irony: Oil Companies commonly state "What--oil production decline? Why, we just had our best year!!" Yes, at 'peak', you do produce a lot!! but eventually, it will decline. There is no Plan B for the world economy, if a plentiful supply of cheap fossil fuels is unavailable.Here's a summary: we had around 2 trillion barrels of oil to start with. we have used about 1 trillion. leaves us with 1 trillion. we use 30 billion per year. do the math. & try watching CRUDE AWAKENING.
  • Anonymous on February 08 2011 said:
    If someone were to ask me why I was writing a new book on energy economics, I would cite an article of this nature - which should not have been published in the United States of America, where there is already an overload of stupidity on the part of movers and shakers. How many times do I have to say it: when the oil price can reach 147, then peak oil is trivial.Wake up authors. Learn the difference between sense and nonsense.
  • Anonymous on February 10 2011 said:
    The magical thinking of a cornucopian. I suppose the author also believes, like his spiritual antecedent that scientifically illiterate Julian Darley, that if we exhaust all resources on this planet, that the market will simply provide another one.
  • Anonymous on February 11 2011 said:
    If the author set out to create a storm of controversy he succeeded brilliantly. If he set out to 'inform' and to 'enlighten' then, judging from the tsumami of adverse comments, he failed miserably. But the comments themselves probably enlightened as much as the article apparently misinformed. But then I guess that is whast controversy is all about...
  • Anonymous on February 13 2011 said:
    Peak oil is a real thing. It is not a renewable resource. There for it has a beginning and an end to it's story. The name "Peak Oil" comes from the most that is produced at one time at the limit of being half the current KNOWN resources. Once that point is breached there will be a decline of oil that will be produced or pumped. As supply goes down the prices will rise. Hence the meaning of peak oil. They do not know how much of the resource is left and available but there is a steady decline in product with increases in population. Which does not correlate with the economics of the world (means more people + more products = more money.) But so does more people + less Products = more money = War/famine/severe decline in money soon after. Wonder why Obama created a farm at the White House. All you have to do is listen to the President and the subtle signs they are giving(watch the Disney Channel commercials with M. Obama) and you have your story right there.
  • Anonymous on February 28 2011 said:
    The author uses the Bakken and Tupi finds as examples of how there is more oil "out there" just waiting to be pumped out of the ground. The thing he misses is that such finds were common 100 years ago in the U.S., 50 years ago in the Middle East, to a lesser extent in the deepwater areas of the world today. But in every location they are becoming less and less common, while becoming more and more expensive to find and extract. It is this reduction in finds that truly holds up the peak oil theory.Oh and incidentally, I've never heard of the "Law" of Evolution, so apparently it is still a theory, just like Relativity. More than a hypothesis, less than a fact.
  • Anonymous on April 14 2011 said:
    I see that the author is a global warming denier and a Creationist (same difference) so this article is hardly science-oriented. I'd wager that at least 80% of AGW deniers are Creationists. Whenever you see someone claim that evolution is "just a theory" you know who you're dealing with and it's not a critical thinker.It's just more Cornucopian denial and endless-greener-pastures rhetoric. Such people willfully ignore scale & time comparisons between KNOWN oil peaks in the U.S. (1970) and the North Sea (2000) and the world as a whole. What makes the world so immune to the same phenomenon, just at a later date? You can't put off that date forever and it has to occur in someone's lifetime!What would the author have said in a conversation with M.K. Hubbert back in the mid 60s? You can guess the answer to that, but here we are 40 years after the U.S. peak. Alaska peaked in the late '80s as a subset of U.S. production but some still insist it never will.
  • Anonymous on April 17 2011 said:
    Is oil a FINITE RESOURCE? If there is so much cheap oil, why are corporations searching for it on the ocean floor? Why spend 100 times more pumping it off-shore if it is so plentiful and "yet to be discovered" on land? Pity NOBODY heeded the 1970's warnings, thanks to MORONS like this, we still have 14 mpg. JUST BRILLIANT! Listen to T Boone Pickens, try to do the math and please locate some common sense!
  • Anonymous on June 12 2011 said:
    it is laughable to see an oil website declare peak oil as nonsense, when the fact that oil companies are drilling ever more dangerous areas such as deep ocean trenches shows how desperate they are getting,Oil companies don't have to prove resurves and people simply have to go off of heresay from them, so we will never know when oil reserves begin running out and supply demand pays little factor as oil companies recieve much more per barrel in profit than expense.prices will remain fairly level right till the end, than a dramatic increase will accur and that will be the end of oil.
  • Anonymous on June 24 2011 said:
    Peak oil is a form of negative speculation and it is used by people to push their own agenda.From this arises two outcomes - the oil companies getting richer, or being forced to find an oil alternative - effectively ending the oil industry. Of course, one side won't want the other to happen, so we are at a balancing game where our money is being siphoned, and no efforts to find alternatives have been made. America never depleted its oil reserves- it just slowed down its extraction so it could save it in the event that it can't get foreign oil. It was thought that oil was a finite resource, but now that doesn't seem to be the case- fossil fuels may arise out of a continuous process that "gaps" every few million years or so. And there is theory that fossil fuels may not even be "fossil" that is, they may be inorganic. Of course, oil is something that is thousands of feet underground, so it is very easy for people to make up numbers and control our livelihood.
  • Anonymous on June 25 2011 said:
    Sorry, but peak oil real, and there is no point in trying to convince intelligent people that this is not the case. All they have to do is to study the history of oil in the U.S. Of course, even more real than peak oil is real money - or serious money as I call it in my new energy economics textbook - and for that reasonyou can knock on any door and find some know-nothing who will tell you that peak oil is nonsense.
  • Anonymous on June 30 2011 said:
    How can you challenge a theory in science? Oil is a natural resource... Natural resource**, it will be gone at some point and that point is rapidly approaching. There's nothing to dispute, challenge, etc., the evidence is all there for you.
  • Anonymous on July 12 2011 said:
    i use geological studies everyday in my chosen profession all hype aside i can tell you 2 things that are fact first is there have been no major oil finds on this planet since 1968 at the current rate we use 1000 barrels for every one we find and secondly with the exception of oceans antartica and a few mountain ranges wich by the way cant have oil under them by deffiniton there mountains the entire planet has been maped and explored so the likley hood of finding new deposits is extremley low to start with and gets lower everyday
  • Anonymous on July 13 2011 said:
    Now this is what we want, and have lacked untio a few years ago in energy economics: PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND THINGS LIKE PEAK OIL, AND CAN DISCUSS THEM INTELLIGENTLY.I dropped out of the global warming discussion because here in Sweden it is carried on by a collection of know-nothings who miss the point. As for peak oil, I can only wish that the gentleman who wrote this would show up in one of my lectures on oil or nuclear. Assuming that he is against nuclear, he would get the education he needs.
  • Anonymous on August 06 2011 said:
    I have never wanted to believe something is a myth so badly in all my life and yet I cannot. We are running out of oil and we will eventually run out. Fact. It will happen in our life times. Our Governments are doing nothing. Recently Saudi Arabia concluded a $300 Billion deal with GE to build 16 Nuclear reactors.... Thats all the proof I need.
  • Anonymous on August 08 2011 said:
    As a rule I avoid anything with the word 'debunking' in the title. In my experience, a 'debunker' usually has a political agenda to misinform or to write a personal criticism without much foundation or intelligence. Often thety are paid by unscrupulous parties to write nonsense so as to try to knock down the open minded and enquiring amongst us. They can also be conservative minded people weho are simply afraid of enquiring open minds. This is why I generally avoid 'debunking' articles.
  • Anonymous on September 13 2011 said:
    From time immemorial, the human race has not only survived but progressed due to thoughts and ability to peep into truth into deep center much earlier before they are self evident.Well done, nourish your and nurture your this "precious natural resource".
  • Anonymous on October 05 2011 said:
    This article was written over a year ago, yet I still find it stupefying.To say peak oil is a theory that can be debunked is 100% false. Oil is a finite resource and we will run out some day. The question then is when will we run out?To think that we can keep up with global demand from emerging markets by finding new oil resources is quite a risk. We can't simply cut down on oil by carpooling. Oil is used for EVERYTHING. No oil- no electricity, transportation, local supermarkets stocked with food, etc. It is ignorant to call this very fact a myth. You show even more ignorance when you comment that oil can net you more money. Oil IS money. When oil becomes scarce (and it will, it is finite), money will be worth nothing and oil will be our currency (it actually already is). People won't trade oil for US dollars when oil is scarce.How can you be so naive?
  • Anonymous on November 03 2011 said:
    Suggest you folks go down to the library and get yourselves a copy of the following book: The Deep, Hot Biosphere, by Dr. Thomas Gold, professor emeritus of physics at Cornell University. I believe his contention is the correct one, i.e., that the origin of crude oil, natural gas, and coal are biogenic in nature. If the gentleman is right, we will never run out of the stuff so long as the bacteria making it continue to remain alive. He also makes note that there are old original fields in Oklahoma that are now filling back up. So much for the shrubbery/dinosaur idea.
  • Anonymous on November 04 2011 said:
    it is surprising to read that there is no crisis in oil supply because we have enough to last another forty years or another one hundred years or whatever. The fact is that at some point whether it be in our grandchildrens lives or great grandchildrens lives there will be a point at which the energy required to extract "x' amount of oil will be "x" if at that point in time we have not established alternative energy sources we will be in deep terminal crisis. The problem is that attempts to debunk Peak Oil tend to sew complacency with the status quo and diminish the awareness of the need for exploration of viable alternatives. Unfortunately the follow up comments about evolution make one doubt the intellectual sincerity of the writer and tend to undermine his credibility on the other issues.
  • Anonymous on November 05 2011 said:
    Which begs one question.If we are really running out of oil,and I have no way of knowing, why is oil so cheap? I mean really, if it was that bad why is there no martial law, rationing, banning of SUV's all planes grounded? No more motor homes. Why are we trading oil?And just when is this disaster going to strike?
  • Anonymous on November 13 2011 said:
    Telling to the world that $100 per bbl oil will open up a whole lot of opportunities is not mug different than saying $1000 per bbl will also open up a whole lot of opportunities. US needs under $20 per bbl to grow strongly, period. It will not happen when the commodity is becoming harder and harder to come by while the demand is only going up. WORLD NEEDS THORIUM REACTORS.
  • Anonymous on November 13 2011 said:
    Thorium is 1000 times more available than Uranium, cuts the cos by 10 times, 10000 times less radioactive and passive safety (you can turn it off almost instantly) unlike today's Uranium reactors, so it is safe. Thorium reactors use 99% of the energy and there is no need for an off-site waste disposal site either. The technology is developed in 1960s and operated for 5 years and shut down by government because you cannot make a bomb from Thorium. China and India are already developing their own Thorium reactors.We already have the miracle fuel; 5,000 tones of Thorium is enough to replace ALL oil, coal and uranium based energy production and usage. Imagine the possibilities, an energy source that remains cheap and virtually infinite. The world has millions of tonnes of Thorium in reserves, unused today, enough for several hundred years without any price change.
  • Fred Banks on December 24 2011 said:
    My students are told to study the peaking of oil in the United States in order to understand a global peaking. If they cant or wont they fail, and that is all there is to it. Of course, when the oil price can reach and stay in the vicinity of 100 dollars during a weak global economy, the peak is superfluous.
  • auricluny on December 27 2011 said:
    Wow Fred,now I see why students can't get a job as they are useless.
  • Fred Banks on December 27 2011 said:
    Students cant get jobs because many teachers and administrators are useless or worse than useless. I won't bother mentioning politicians. A good example here is Mr Obama. He comes from a depressed part of Chicago, but one of his main concerns after becoming president was wars on the other side of the world. Needless to say though, my finance students got jobs, and good ones. One reason was that final exams here took four hours, but I gave them six hours of work - and AURICLUNY, the non-hackers were made to understand that this was to be their fate in the first five minutes of the first day of the course, in language by yours truly that could not be misinterpreted.
  • Mat on December 30 2011 said:
    Even if you dispute the "when" there is no dispute about "whether" it will happen. This article proves it. It concludes that we have:***enough time for the whole Peak Oil thing to be prolonged into the next century, which means there is no crisis. At least, there is nothing yet to have a war over.***Next century? Next century! How is this not a crisis? It'll take longer than that to wean society off our oil depencancy, and even then we still need to reduce population growth else condenm millions to a horrible death! But I suppose that doesn't matter compared to the likes of Dennis Edison getting his thirty silver's worth.
  • Anonymous on March 17 2010 said:
    Wow, "Editorial Dept" you must really believe in magic.

    "...when there’s a profit to be made, people get industrious and get up to speed quickly."

    Well, there's infinite profit to be made from artificial intelligence, teleportation, faster than light travel and a drug that would keep you youthful forever. Haven't seen any of these yet though.

    Some problems are just harder than others.

    Don't expect magic solutions to happen on schedule because people want them too.
  • Anonymous on March 18 2010 said:
    Dennis Eidson is correct that an increase in nuclear power production would take demand off gas and coal consumption for generating electricity, and extend those fuel reserves much farther into the future.

    Microbial fuels will begin to hit the market within 10 years, and likewise extend the life of liquid fossil fuel reserves.

    There are persons who have devoted their lives to doom of one type or another -- peak oil doom, climate doom, whatever. It would break their hearts to discover how much of their lives they have wasted.

    But problem-solvers will continue to solve problems and find ways to get at needed resources, or find substitutes for needed resources that have become too expensive. The motivation of a problem-solver is completely different from the motivation of a doomseeker.
  • Anonymous on March 19 2010 said:
    There are two things that I don't tolerate in seminars and conferences (and my classrooms of course), These are nonsense about oil and nuclear. If you want to know about peak oil, study what happened in the United States. The entire story is there: when oil production peaked in the US, there was a huge amount of oil on shore and off shore. The issue quite simply was economics, just as it was in the North Sea, and with the Cantarell field in Mexico.

    Try reading the note that I just submitted to this Forum called Happy Anniversary to OPEC, especially the final paragraph, and don't forget the long chapter on oil in my new energy book..
  • Anonymous on March 19 2010 said:
    Well, has the author considered expanding his logic through publishing a paper in peer reviewed journals???
  • Anonymous on March 19 2010 said:
    Rosh, he could publish this half-baked fantasy in every peer reviewed journal between Alaska and the Capetown Naval Yard, and it wouldn't make any difference to me. He just doesn't know what he's talking about. Of course, if the oil price can touch $147/b, then peak oil loses its importance. Just as significant, non-OPEC oil - which is about 60% of the global oil supply - has apparently peeked, which effectively leaves OPEC in charge, and they know it. That is why the price of oil is in the 80s, despite a nearly dysfunctional global macroeconomy.

    . As for this gas thing, some very smart people say that a large part of that is hype. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but the evidence that we need is not yet available in the right kind of package.
  • Anonymous on March 26 2010 said:
    To the previous comments: You obviously have not researched this topic. Google on 'abiotic petroleum', and read the proven Russian theory that oil is not derived from fossils (it can be produced in a lab, like diamonds). There are increasing indications that petroleum is produced continually deep in the earth. Why hold on to a 'flat-earth' theory of fossil origins?
  • Anonymous on May 04 2010 said:
    World wide oil discoveries have been less than annual production since 1980.World oil production growth trends were flat from 2005 to 2008.world oil consumption is around 85,000,000 bbl/day. OPEC estimated that there is between 900,000,000,000 and 1,200,000,000,000 bbl in reserves even at best estimate, current demand will consume that reserves in less than 35 years
  • Anonymous on November 19 2010 said:
    Remember: Oil doesn't have to be depleted for there to be a crisis. It merely has to peak (hence the term), or the cost of processing has to rise just high enough for prices to spike.
  • Anonymous on August 18 2011 said:
    The author of this article claims to have gone to college in the 1970s yet fails to spell out which one. Never in my life have I seen such Green Acres mindset.Shale Rock Oil has the energy density of a box of Captain Crunch cereal or 10% of oil and is like squeezing oil from a rock, literally.Has Dennis Eidson for PilPrice.comever heard of Dr. Marion King Hubbert?Peak Oil occurred in 2007 at no higher than 86 million barrels of oil per day. The author needs to stop drinkingKool Aid.
  • Anonymous on April 04 2010 said:
    ECOWAS OIL AND GAS COMMISSION SUGGESTED TO DEAL WITH GHANA-COTE D'IVOIRE BORDER DISPUTE

    In regards to the maritime boundary dispute between Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire that erupted this in March 2010 that has been said by OILPRICE.COM to casts doubt on future international oil claims near the contested area and raises questions about the reaction of foreign investors to the uncertainty.

    Speaking to EBC 1 journalist on the above issues, Dr Bonny Umeadi, the inventor of Oil and Gas pipeline Integrity monitoring Technologies stated that; [visit this link]
    http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/5534067-ecowas-oil-and-gas-commission-suggested-to-deal-with-ghanacote-divoire-border-dispute
  • Anonymous on September 24 2010 said:
    I hope we are not end up like in the Bakassi conflit. Cote d'ivoire are good neighbors but who knows politics and its greed. The border dispute needs to be fix before anyone starts production otherwise, we will end up will reservoir depletion on both sides of the border. if the reserve is connected as suggested by the studies.
  • Anonymous on March 19 2010 said:
    What most would be jr miners lack is a clear understanding of CAPEX, i.e., just exactly what it costs to mine and operate the product. In my view, any E&P jr miner in Canada, US and australia are at a significant disadvantage relative to CAPEX and most are looking for a J/V bailout from the Majors. However, if E&P done right in Indonesia, Mongolia, West & South Africa and Patagonia, an investor just might come out with winners.
  • Anonymous on March 24 2010 said:
    But it has worked for 30-40+ years, whats to stop them? If they can buy the bonds with printed money, the money will then always appear to keep the yields low.
  • Anonymous on March 20 2010 said:
    A fantastic report Mr Ford. I also understand that a process is being used to gassify the bitumen thereby using it instead of natural gas in the process.
  • Anonymous on March 21 2010 said:
    Glad to see you publishing here, Gregor. The more of your work we see the better it will be for all of us on the buy side of energy markets.
  • Anonymous on March 23 2010 said:
    Great! However do you think its really in the US interest to increase the value of dollar?
  • Anonymous on March 29 2010 said:
    This theory makes no sense whatsoever.

    Having 100k in cash and 100k in credit are two completely different things. There is NOTHING to stop the federal government from dropping money into people's bank accounts indefinetly, they have done it in the past with Katrina debit cards and Bush $600 checks. What you do not seem to understand is, in an electronic money age, where the government is on the hook for 50 trillion of liabilities they have every intention of "inflating their way out". Its simple, the treasury can issue trillions of new bonds and the fed can buy all of them. Or the fed can come out and buy anything and everything with freshly printed dollars, look at what they have done with mortgages and commercial paper. Issued 2 trillion in new $ instantly, you think they will not issue another 10?

    Mish was only correct over the initial 2008 crash, but that is not deflation. Hes been dead wrong since, treasury yields are rising, gold is rising, oil 80+ IN THIS ENVIRONMENT???
  • Anonymous on March 27 2010 said:
    I've taught economics and finance for what seems like centuries, and until recently the ridiculing of Malthus was mandatory. Now of course there is a feeling just about everywhere that the reverend knew what he was talking about. The expression 'declining energy and increasing population' deserves to be given full consideration by our political masters, but this is only the beginning. More energy is probably available than commonly believed, and as someone recently pointed out somewhere, more energy means more prosperity. but like the author of this contribution, I cant get it out of my head that in some sense a 'tipping point' has been reached. Restoring the situation is not impossible, and in a few countries the ´leadership is not only available but quite willing to do what has to be done. As for the rest of the circus however, they don't have a clue.
  • Anonymous on March 29 2010 said:
    yar adua should not even plan to come back to presidency.BECAUSE a sick person can not lead a sick nation
  • Anonymous on October 10 2010 said:
    It is great to hear that India is catching on. Solar power is the way of the future for sure.
  • Anonymous on October 05 2010 said:
    I'll say it over and over. Listen to T. Boone....we need it all!
  • Anonymous on March 25 2010 said:
    Peak oil is causing so much distraction. USA can be self sufficient in energy if only they change there energy mix. Nuclear and natural gas come to mind. But would the big industrial/military complex go along with it? I don't think so.
    Why hasn't America got a long term energy policy that promotes local energy production. You have the technology.
    But it is better to run around the world with a huge military machine placating clowns like Chavas, crackpot muslims and others.
    Congress seems to be non-functional and does not give a damn about the average guy. It's all big business and lets keep that confusion/spin going.
  • Anonymous on March 25 2010 said:
    I shouldn't lose any sleep over the deployment of US Marines in Afghanistan if I were the author. If you find the time, read about how General Smedley Butler (USMC)described what he considered the mission of the Marine Corps He said that they were meant to function as tax collectors for the US government, and he had nothing but contempt for the governments that put them in that position.

    The commitment of the US military to Afghanistan is insane. I can however understand why Swedish soldiers are in that country. It is to make it possible for the Swedish foreign minister - and perhaps some of his colleagues - to obtain highly paid international jobs. They have as their model the Danish prime minister, who was rewarded with the chairmanship of NATO as a reward for sending Danish soldiers to Iraq..

  • Anonymous on March 25 2010 said:
    I would like to know more about these "Oxford Experts", because if they are who I think they are, some of them do not have much to offer.

    But even so, they could be correct. If you have studied any amount of game theory you know that the telling of lies - and in some cases outrageous lies about the future availability of oil - is now standard operating procedure. Moreover, there is a logical reason for the oil producing countries to claim more reserves than they actually have: the point is to convince oil buyers that while oil prices may occasionally escalate, there are sufficient reserves in the crust of the earth to reverse the situation...in due course. Some oil companies do the same thing, and both OPEC and the majors make a point of insisting that peak oil is a chimera. Only TOTAL does not go along with the anti-peak oil fantasy
  • Anonymous on March 25 2010 said:
    We need to adapt. Take a look at this article The Great Transition: http://www.scribd.com/doc/21656220/The-Great-Transition-Navigating-Social-Economic-Ecological-Change-in-Turbulent-Times
  • Anonymous on March 27 2010 said:
    Many years ago I wrote a book about oil, and after giving what I thought was a brilliant lecture about that subject in Fienna, I was called a fool by an American businessman because of some statements I made about shale OIL. Since then I have been relatively careful when examining information about oil reserves.

    I feel it necessary to report that I don't have any reason to believe that the people who wrote the report referred to by Darrell Delamaide are more competent than the persons who accept the existing figures for OPEC reserves. Some years ago a well known American academic told me that Saudi Arabia was in the process of greatly expanding its reserves, and I not only told him that he didn't know what he was talking about, but challenged him to a public discussion on this topic. By the same token I am not aware of any reason to shout to the house tops that we are being deceived by the reserve figures supplied by OPEC or the International Energy Agency. You see, the Smith 'experts' are not primarily energy people: their specialty is environment. And in addition, their belief that freight should be transported by airships instead of conventional means does not sound right to this teacher of applied and theoretical economics. No, it doesn't sound right at all.

    I suggest that we wait a while before we accept the new Oxford estimate of OPEC reserves. We don't want our political masters to make any mistakes on this important subject.
  • Anonymous on May 11 2010 said:
    The real issue people should be talking about when it comes to Peak Oil isn't that we are running out of oil. The elephant in the room is that the easy to access and easy to refine "sweet crude" petroleum is close to (if not already) been extracted.The oil executives and those who refuse to contemplate that Cheap Peak Oil crisis is real love to flaunt these high "reserve" quantities. But if anyone who does any real research can tell you, is that there are various different ways to really calculate and understand what a known reserve is. Lets just say that the 800 billion barrels is a real #...how much can actually be extracted, or how much of it sweet, easy to refine??Most people just want to hear a large number of barrels, and feel its enough to be secure (or naive) to think this is not a problem for them.
  • Anonymous on March 29 2010 said:

    Very interesting information.
  • Anonymous on March 27 2010 said:
    The importance of credit in economic growth and development is a no-brainer, and so once we learn that credit has not collapsed, and may be expanding, we can start smiling again. In fact if you read European instead of U.S. newspapers, it's easy to believe that the new president and his team may have turned the US economy around.
  • Anonymous on March 29 2010 said:
    Mr. Banks, I think you're right on the money. Politics is never on the money in the US. Winning in the polls and hurting whoever is in power is the fame
  • Anonymous on March 30 2010 said:
    Contraction in credit increases economic contraction which is deflationary for assets, and businesses e.g. housing values still falling.
    Inflation is happening also, in the consumables we buy- so we are losing from both sides. The Wall St. driven rally will end badly as main street consumption (70% of GNP) continues to contract, and the gov. tries to replace it with their (our) future tax dollars.This is not sustainable, but the public will reelect them and that's all they care about.
  • Anonymous on May 11 2010 said:
    We are not in the eighteen hundreds and colonialism is not welcome in South America after 200 years of exploitation of all renewable and non-renewable resources, genocide, devastation and demoralization of the indigenous people of the Amazons. There is a movement called Mercosur (actual secretary is ex-president of Argentina Kirchner) and other one called ALBA. The Union of South American countries Mercosur will not let Britain and their overinflated ego do as its pleases. South America has set a pluralistic geopolitical front with strong allies worldwide. Anyone with mediocre thinking capabilities will not act like in the 18 hundreds. Even loaded with opium (remember China?).
  • Anonymous on July 11 2010 said:
    the british will fight or talk, it does not matter, but the facts are this, their is only two ways argentina will get the falklands, and only two, either the islanders vote to become argentine, or the argentines fight for them and kick the british off, the fist one is very very doubtfull, and the 2nd one is imposable, with or without American help, or the back up that south american countries may help argentina, the british will fight, and thats the end of it, so to all , the choice is yours , as clint eastwood said [do you feel lucky punk] in his case the answer is [no ] long live great britain, the defende of all that is small, against bit bullys like the couwardly argies,
  • Anonymous on March 21 2011 said:
    The islands have been British since 1690. Argentina has invaded on 2 occassions, 1832 and 1982 and on both occassions the Falkland Islnads have been retaken by British forces. Argentina has NO claim to the islands and the British Government is right in supporting the islander's wishes. Currently they wish to remain British. One day they may wish to become independent. There is no viable 3rd option.Also, contary to the information in the article, there has not been a UN General Assembly Resolution since 1988. The 'Resolutions' that Argentina claims are merely the annual reports from the Decolonization sub-committee. A discredited body with no real power.Britain resolved the dispute with Spain in 1833 and with Argentina in 1982. Job done!
  • Anonymous on April 05 2010 said:
    This is poor analysis, by someone very unfamiliar with the heart of central Asian issues as well as simple energy technologies. For instance, the author seems unaware that the main reason for western interests in the fossil fuels of central Asia is not for the energy and its income so much as for its value in terms of geopolitical control. That is, oil/natural gas can be 'hoarded' easier than can solar/wind/etc. in much the same way that tenders of debt allows for more control than does hard currency. 'Hoarding' is the most appropriate term, because it is not the money and resources that we are at war for as much as it is the control of the flow of money and resources. They don't want to flood the market with more fuel; just the opposite, they want to keep most of it out of the market, the same way they want to lower currencies. We could have run the entire American grid on concentrated solar-thermal about as soon as we constructed the grid about the same time that we last had no debt about a century ago, and yet we are still yacking about drilling off-shore and still bombing the non-whites of the world while going into trillions of debt. I get frustrated when I see journalists fret about how complicated it is to 'help' the developing countries, when usually all that is needed is for the west to take their heel off of their throats.
  • Anonymous on April 05 2010 said:
    ...approved by the staff?
    Is this the same staff that approved of this article which contains elements of racism?
    Those who have nothing have plenty to lose: thier families, their hopes, their culture. Furthermore, radicalization tends to be more often among those who are afraid of losing their power, because they have constructed a paradigm of value based upon heirarchy. Remember also that most 'radical' groups in the world were financed, armed, and managed by western wealth.

    Good Luck.
  • Anonymous on April 05 2010 said:
    Well said, Stephen! Distribution and debt are today's levers of global control. This simple - but unmentioned - hypothesis makes the words of so many highly publicized politicians and journalists vibrate with hypocrisy.

    What do you make of the article on the Gulf of Guinea? Is this a forewarning of the next major regional conflict currently being prepared by US-EU-NATO? Special forces are already on the ground; advanced miliary technology is already in the region. Millions of Africans in the coastal states around the Gulf of Guinea await their fate as prisoners, refugees, or corpses. And, if the rest of the world is told anything by its media, the geopolitics will be concealed in stories of ethnic, sectarian or regional conflict. There are times when one feels ashamed to be a citizen of affluent western society.
  • Anonymous on April 06 2010 said:
    Well, I really don't know alot about global affairs; I guess that's why I got frustrated with this article. I actually do appreciate alot of what Oilprice does. I just really want reporting that gives new information and analysis. From what little I know, it seems that our conflicts often follow drug supply lines, such as southeast Asia in the past and the Afghanistan heroin which moves through parts of the old Soviet Union through Chechnya, and then Turkey to Kosovo and Armenia; these apparently gave cause to the more recent conflicts in those regions. Now there is a steady stream of jets crossing the Atlantic from Colombia's FARC through an island off of Venezuala to the poor nations of the western coast of Africa, such as the Gulf of Guinea. The cocaine then moves across Nigeria and through the Sahara desert in SUV caravans towards the so-called arc of instability. So, considering that Nigeria is about to remake its government following the visit by George Bush Jr., Condolissa Rice, and Tony Blair, I would guess that this drug line will be the next area to find 'terrorists', tribal conflicts, and national security interests (oil). There is evidence that western intelligence agencies are part of the coordinating of these drug supply lines, apparently because of the flow of unofficial and untraceable cash and weapons that the drug world offers. Whenever you need a conflict, you just supply/finance the western friendly drug lord, call it terrorism and move our military in (with aid) to establish yet another base. It depresses me, these poor people caught between the power players. I'm not a journalist so I don't keep the links, I just try to piece together the messy puzzle as best as I can. But there isn't much good information and it is very complicated, and even harder to believe.
  • Anonymous on April 24 2010 said:
    The 30,000 people displaced are living above the proposed dam, on some of the best farm land there is. What about all the people BELOW the dam on a river that takes 7 years just to fill the reservoir?

    The Russians killed the Aral sea, so I wouldn't trust their big hydrological schemes.
  • Anonymous on March 30 2010 said:
    The article states "lobbying not only by the provincial government in Calgary". In fact, the Alberta Government sits in the provincial capitol of Edmonton.
  • Anonymous on March 31 2010 said:
    Could someone reconcile the difference between environmentalist claims of 3X higher carbon footprint vs industry claim of 5 - 15% higher carbon footprint when it is consumed as fuel. Are they comparing apples to oranges? What are those numbers based on?

    I don't have a dog in this fight, just seems the article isn't clear on that point.
  • Anonymous on March 31 2010 said:
    Basically, the 3 times higher VS 5-15% higher carbon footprint is comparing apples to oranges. The 5-15% represents the total carbon footprint, that is extraction + reffinage + consumption. The 3 times only represents the difference in the extraction process. Of course, both figures are to be considered cautiously given the lack of "objective" studies on the subject.
  • Anonymous on April 01 2010 said:
    Thanks PY.
  • Anonymous on March 31 2010 said:
    If Dick Cheney said that the Caspian was strategically significant, then somebody needs to step up and say that he probably doesn't know what he is talking about. After all, he was a key player in the starting of a war based on a lie about weapons of mass destruction, and which has destroyed/ruined the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqui, many of them children. Moreover, as was the case in East Europe, the Russian presence in the Caucasus is illogical. Russia has everything in the way of natural resources and human talent that is needed to become - in the fairly near future - a very rich country, assuming that they try to avoid senseless 'wars of peace'..
  • Anonymous on March 31 2010 said:
    Excellent piece. Disappointed to see only 1596 views so far. Hopefully it gets more viewers.
  • Anonymous on April 01 2010 said:
    As long as Russia is embroiled in this matter and the region is unsafe, then the other more secure states will drink the milkshake up. Although the Russians have seen the impacts of terrorism, the Chechnians have been brutalized in this conflict, I am curious if Russia has made a concurrent attempt to change the demographic composition of that region while they are bombing its current inhabitants.

    I can't attest to the merits of the case, besides what I have heard and read, but, there are at least two former FSB agents documented, one of which is dead now, suggesting that at least some of the terrorist events were staged by the FSB as a pretext for invasion. That certainly can't be said for all of the terrorism that has occurred but, it is a question that needs to be definitively answered.

    I wouldn't be at all surprised if there wasn't Georgian support for the Chechen cause given their strained relationship with Russia. Or any other state for that matter who has a security interest in seeing Russia's status diminished.
  • Anonymous on April 01 2010 said:
    I'm afraid the true causes of the bombing in Moscow have much deeper historical roots. The oil factor is not the significant element in the causality chain, but occupation wars that started already at the end of the 18th century.
    In a similar way, it would be wrong to say that the true cause of any of all the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, wars or intifadas are anything else but the Balfour Declaration in 1917.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechnya#Caucasian_Wars
  • Anonymous on April 01 2010 said:
    Any nation could cease attacks like these,all that is necessary is to declare that for every bombing,there will be an aerial bombing of cities dear to the terrorists which will be designed to kill 10 times as many.
    In short order,potential bombers will realize that they will be killing their brethren by donning explosives.
  • Anonymous on April 01 2010 said:
    Increasingly, innocent people are being targeted by various sociopaths because those people are the easy targets. From the mass bombings of WWII to the present day of political bombings, just being at the wrong place at the wrong time can be the basis for being condemned to death. Obviously, our propensity for organizing ourselves into large states and groups results in inhuman eventualities.
  • Anonymous on April 05 2010 said:
    Its' that vital issue of national pride with the Russians . . they have lost so much of it in the past three plus decades. However, one is reminded of the passage from the Book of Proverbs: "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall." Take heed America!
  • Anonymous on April 01 2010 said:
    So OPEC is going to increase capacity by 12 mb/d. Hmm. I guess that I will have to write the students in my course on oil and gas economics at the Asian Institute of Technology, and tell them that I was wrong about OPEC's plans. Or maybe, instead of apologizing, I will write them and tell them not to believe everything they hear from talk-shops like Cancun. Yes, I think that the latter option makes more sense. A lot more sense. And by the way, perhaps you can tell me what you would do in you were OPEC?
    .
  • Anonymous on April 03 2010 said:
    The last paragraph in this article is wrong. And Darrell, I'm really surprised that YOU could buy that song and dance. If there is a sustainable decline in the oil price, it is because OPEC wants one.
  • Anonymous on March 31 2010 said:
    This pickup in economic activity is real rather than fictitious, at least for the time being. It can be detected on the basis of what is happening economically in Europe. And hopefully OPEC will get the message, and help us - and themselves - by not boosting the price of oil.
  • Anonymous on April 07 2010 said:
    obama has not the sence of a billygoat theres more fossil fuel in the dakotas and colorado tha all of the other countries combined so now off shore drilling that wont amout to a tea kettle half full to what can be acomplished by drilling here in the u s of a . the enviromentast are kissing his ass all the way to distruction of our great country
  • Anonymous on April 02 2010 said:
    This is an important article, and it deserves the widest possible circulation. For example, I hope that it finds a place in some of the superb microeconomics books that are now available. I'm thinking of course of having the spotlight turned on inventories, which are the 'stock' side of the stock-flow models that are featured in my textbooks. At the same time I do not feel that I can agree with some of the observations about futures markets and speculation. On balance, I think that futures trading has improved the efficiency of oil trading, and as the author points out, speculation has had a positive effect on liquidity in the futures market. As for excessive speculation that results in false price signals, this almost certainly takes place from time to time, but unless 'paper' prices are validated by supply and demand in the 'physical' market, we will not e.g. get a sustained oil price rise. Think about that, because I just saw that the oil price has touched $85/b.
  • Anonymous on April 02 2010 said:
    I agree with not of the points explained in this article.

    As to the price of oil one of the big points herin is that the consumer is not the prime driver of demand, countries are. Another point about sustainability of price made by Mr. Banks in comments is also noted.

    Playing this forward regarding oil prices will soon be effected by effforts to disuade Iran from their nuclear goals. Why? because this time in President Obama is correct Russia and China along with the other countries will include shutting off of both gasoline imports into Iran and buying of oil from Iran. If this is true oil supplies will quickly be increased worldwide beyond an amount that can be countered by speculating to the upside.
  • Anonymous on April 04 2010 said:
    I think these MBS are the "collateral" that the Chinese have demanded from the US government to continue to purchase our debt and will be used for payment of debt when the dollar crashes leaving the Chinese as major real estate owners.
  • Anonymous on April 19 2010 said:

    The FED needs to stay the hell out of the stock market. How can anyone possibly know true value from false, supported value?
  • Anonymous on April 06 2010 said:
    Good summary, Darrell. Looking elsewhere I saw that the oil price has touched $86/b. How high is it going to go?
    Is it going to reach 90 this month, and 100 during the merry month of May? For all the good it will do, now I understand why President Obama gave the signal to start offshore exploration again. Lets hope that the decision makers are on their toes during the coming months.
  • Anonymous on April 07 2010 said:
    "martyr-bombers"? No, they were murderers. They killed mothers, daughters, fathers and sons who were doing nothing but trying to live honorable lives. Call the killers what they are. Vicious murderers.
  • Anonymous on April 07 2010 said:
    If the Chinese 'manipulate' their currency in order to benefit their entire economy, and particularly persons with low incomes, then I say more power to them. Consider for example Sweden. The value of the Swedish crown could fall to almost nothing, but the Swedish government would probably stand on the sidelines with puzzled looks on their faces, because the European Union might not accept any positive action to reverse the situation.
  • Anonymous on March 24 2011 said:
    China is unwilling to let the value of the yuan "float" and be determined though the normal forces of trade and currency trading. If the American government does plan to make a stand, it has no better time that to do it now to strengthen its level of exports and use that to help the US economy recover.
  • Anonymous on April 08 2010 said:
    As with most energy things from the University of Delaware, this so-called study can be labeled bunkum or 'pie in the sky'. Of course, there is no possibility whatsoever that a sane government would place its trust in an offshore wind grid to do the things suggested above. Or at least, I hope that they don't.
  • Anonymous on April 08 2010 said:
    So this is the profitable gas shale industry that everyone was talking about? Perhaps this is the time to have a somewhat more honest discussion about the euphoria of the past few years over all these new reserves and gas prices. The price of nat gas did not drop to the current levels because of all the new cheap shale gas that has been flowing lately. Consumption of a localy traded comodity has gone down significantly, and that is the real story here. Shale gas at these prices will most likely cease flowing. The price of shale gas to the consumer and the economy will be much higher in the future if it is to be produced at all.
  • Anonymous on April 08 2010 said:
    This is an interesting article, although it needs to be pointed out that in the context of the development of the European natural gas market, the key item will be the movement of Russian gas toward China, and perhaps not just Russian gas. Exactly what is going on in the Kremlin, what are their hopes and dreams is unclear, but one thing is certain: the people who run the natural gas industry in Russia are primarily interested in money, and have been for decades. Political and geopolitical considerations come well down on the list.
  • Anonymous on April 08 2010 said:
    the route is very well planned. it will be a secure route for europeans.thanks to thinktanks.
  • Anonymous on April 12 2010 said:
    Interesting article,however i doubt this was a move conceved by a think tank as mister Kenan said.
    It comes out of need and Romania follows it's own interests, energy security is among the biggest.
    It remains to be seen who will finance the project.
    Even so Nabucco is still on.
  • Anonymous on April 19 2010 said:
    no wonder the bear growls
  • Anonymous on April 13 2010 said:
    I think this investment clearly shows the value of the Oilsands - one that has been downplayed by the Obama administration. America had, I repeat had, a sole secure oil source in Canada. America hesitated and then blinked...

    Canada is the single largest supplier of Oil to the US currently so just imagine what will happen to the economy when large volumes of Canadian Oil are being shipped to Asia.
  • Anonymous on April 17 2010 said:
    The children,the trades people,the migrant workers from the Atlantic and Pacific ocean and all those willing to work will benefit.As Harry Truman said,"Study your History". the first and greatest and most efficient technology came from China and I can't see why it would not be employed by the Chinese at the Suncor and Syncrude plants. One can see them working with environmentalist to prevent raw bitumen from been exported to Mexico and thence back into the United States.Time to lobby the xenophobic powers that be and invite them to X'ian, The Cradle of China and to Shenzhen and Dameisha in November and see what clean and friendliness is all about.Very gracious people, hardworking and polite. Good luck.
  • Anonymous on April 17 2010 said:
    currentrecovery system uses light from used electrons and converts it back to useable current. There are two known electric cars that have been running for five years with no limitations on range. I have seen one of these cars.


    Verner
  • Anonymous on April 29 2010 said:
    For the author of this articel Mr. Fawzia SheikhOn several occasions we have tried to take up contact with firms, authorities and institutions to find co-operative partners for algae breeding, CO2 capture in photo.bio-reactor technology and the production of algae based products including bio fuel. No interest so far! So where are all these eager officials wanting to "plow into alternative energy recources"? Algae breeding became already a "game shifting technology". The methods and the technology is there, fully operating and very rewarding seen from the economical point of view. so what are the Saudis waiting for? A wake up call?Andreas Abrahamalgaenova at email dot deFollow the technology at www.scribd.comsearch > idemeolink:http://www.scribd.com/doc/29775087/Specification-Bio-Reactor
  • Anonymous on April 30 2010 said:
    Some 68 BILLION potential reasons to invest in QTMM and it's growing at high double digit rates. Carbon Credits!!! Their planned Saudi Arabia Solar Project is just one more innovative way they are taking advantage of their unique Nanotechnology breakthroughs to bring their ideas to reality. Pure genius on the CEO's part. :lol: I wish I had more info on the Dutch company and Saudi Arabia connection.
  • Anonymous on April 14 2010 said:
    Again, Dr. Daly has provided an excellent historical perspective and policy details to understand the current situation in Kyrgyzstan. I look forward to part 2.
  • Anonymous on April 15 2010 said:
    China's construction problems are huge and not likely to get better. Chinese building inspectors are easily bought and rarely punished.

    The US' problems mentioned here (McMansions) are the result of shoddy contractors, but are nowhere on the scale of construction catastrophes that one sees in China.

    The author would have done better by focusing on one problem or the other, rather than providing a mis-matched apples and oranges pseudo-equivalence.

    By providing a false comparison, the reader is handed an exaggerated view of US construction problems and a somewhat whitewashed view of the ongoing Chinese disaster.
  • Anonymous on April 15 2010 said:
    I worked at a university, and lived in an apartment in Hong Kong. I dont see why there should be construction problems in China, when I didn't see or hear of any in my Hong Kong neighborhood. One thing though is certain: if there are problems in China, their government will eventually see that they are solved.
  • Anonymous on April 16 2010 said:
    Hardly, Al. Which department of DR Horton do you work for again?
  • Anonymous on April 15 2010 said:
    I was at an important seminar/meeting on coal yesterday, which to begin was very interesting, and which informed the congregation that a lot of coal was going to be used in the future. I of course knew this, because there is too much energy in coal to give it the cold shoulder. The discussion though eventually turned to CCS, in which cap-and-trade was also mentioned. I was 15 months in Germany with the US Army, and since it was pretty much like a vacation I spent a lot of time trying to find out what it was like to be exposed to the nonsense of Joseph Goebbels and Co. Briefly, it must have been like the nonsense preached in that seminar, where I understood everything, and made it clear that I did and didn't agree, while many of the other participants also understood, but kept their lips buttoned. One way or another, there is eventually going to be some bad news on the coal front.
  • Anonymous on April 16 2010 said:
    Markey and the AGW crowd still cannot show a correlation between CO2 and temperature. This whole charade is not science but agenda politics intended to exert control over peoples lives and scam the public out of billions of dollars. Absolutely criminal.
  • Anonymous on April 16 2010 said:
    The CO2 as a pollutant fraud is going to be too hard to stop. Obama is fully aware of Climategate and the rest of the UN's IPCC fraudulent science. He is the first President that is knowingly accepting an out and out lie in exchange for the huge benefits the fraudlent carbon taxes is going to bring for government. The Cap and Trade and Carbon Taxes are just going to create extreme fuel poverty in the US and that is a recipe for disaster. Visit ClimateDepot.com to learn more about the global warming hoax, the precursor to carbon taxes.
  • Anonymous on April 17 2010 said:
    "The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
    - Club of Rome,
    premier environmental think-tank,
    consultants to the United Nations

    "We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
    - Prof. Stephen Schneider,
    Stanford Professor of Climatology,
    lead author of many IPCC reports

    We need to understand the background to their green agenda:
    http://green-agenda.com/
  • Anonymous on April 17 2010 said:
    Markey and the rest of the Marxist dems want the rest of the United States to pay the same rates for power as New England, some 3 times that of the Midwestern electricity customers who purchase power generated by coal. The taxes generated by HB 2454 will be Trillions with a capital "T" - enough for health care and Cadillacs for all those that will vote for the idiots in Congress and the Obama administration perpetrating this scam on unwitting citizens. Let's use some good old American science generated by our experts and see where that takes us. I am sure it won't be to Washington or Copenahagen.
  • Anonymous on April 17 2010 said:
    The comments so far on the article about the House Select Committee quoting Rep. Markey are the most informed and intelligent that I have read in months. Maybe, just maybe, light is beginning to shine on the dark deeds of the AGW group. If we just wait a couple of years until the British are sitting in the dark, and the other EU countries are also struggling with power shortages and unreliable power the rest of the time, maybe the U.S. can avoid the pain. Somehow I can't believe that our environmental scaremonger groups and the politicians will wait to see this.
  • Anonymous on August 12 2010 said:
    Wow. It is quite embarrassing indeed to read the comments above. Barbara you sounds a little silly, I am sure the Europeans will be just fine, as will the Chinese. As those states innovate and diversify their energy portfolio's I think it will unfortunately be us Americans who are left in the dark (technologically speaking). In ten years time when we are far behind in renewable energy technologies we will thank the Europeans and Chinese for their fore-thought, and probably need to purchase the majority of energy related product/technologies from them. As we seem to be already, i.e. wind turbines etc/photovoltaics. Although somebody will tell me that GE are supplying the high-tech aspects of these products, the employment growth is seen in China where they are producing the majority of the components. Anyway, I think you see where I am going, as I ramble, I think the US is built on innovation rather than denial. You do all make me laugh though. Funny people.
  • Anonymous on April 18 2010 said:
    I enjoyed your article and agree with much that you have stated but America has been in slow decline since the Vietnam war. Putin will never realize his dream of returning Russia to its former glory either. The great equalizer or spoiler, depending on which side of the fence you're on, is the "information age". For all the plans and manoeverings of world politicians, it is no match for the increasing world enlightenment of people through the Internet. It is only a matter of time.
  • Anonymous on April 19 2010 said:
    It is a really interesting article. Hence I'd like to add some comments.

    1-) Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict is still continuing and Russia couldn't or didn't want to change it. So instability in caucasus will be going on in the following years which jeopardizes Russian interests.

    2-) Dependency works in two ways. As much as Turkey needs Russian gas, Russia needs Turkish money. And natural gas is not as much critical source as Russia thinks. After a cold winter , each and every European country would find a way to survive.

    3-) Russia may have conducted some impressive actions in elections Ukraine, and central asia uprising. But those manipulations were like 1850's British foreign office way of manipulations. Which are nto supported by huge public support and more importantly , reversible. In the following two or three years the newcomers may go as they come.

    As a result , this article shows very interesting and realistic points regarding Russian resurgence, but it over-estimates Russian energy card. Afterall Turkey is very close to alternative energy sources yet it's industrial output is two times more than Russia. So it is naive to think it as a sattellite state as this article refers.
  • Anonymous on April 24 2010 said:
    @ ronur

    according to CIA world factbook Russia's GDP per capita is 9 000 $ while that of Turkey 7 700 $. It makes Russian economy in absolute numbers 2,5 times stronger then that of Turkey, as well as 18% stronger then in Turkey as per capita. World bank fugures are approximatelly the same - you need just google for those data. Russian gas export to Turkey is miserable as compared to Russia-EU gas flow -so hardly Russia is in such a need of Turkish money as well.
  • Anonymous on April 24 2010 said:
    "The Georgian mis-adventure of 2008"-
    Last year, the Russian army positioned itself just 20 miles from Georgia’s capital, Tbilisi—one hour on the highway by tank. Clouds are gathering: large military maneuvers, inflammatory media rhetoric, and a Russian veto in the UN Security Council that interrupted the work of neutral observers. The UN and the OSCE have packed their bags, leaving 200 observers, restricted to the Russian side. Pavel Felgenhauer, a military specialist based in Moscow, fears that the Russian military command will take advantage of the absence of observers in Georgia to concoct some pretext to invade and fulfill their fondest wish—to “hang Saakashvili by the balls,” as Putin threatened in 2008. (After all, didn’t Germany invade Poland in 1939 by trotting out two unfortunate Polish border guards, whom the Germans accused of “invading” the Third Reich?) Andrei Illarionov, Putin’s special advisor until 2006, shares similar apprehensions. It’s hard to know what to expect. Sergei Kovalev, an activist and a friend of the late Andrei Sakharov, dissuades me from trying to read the signs of the times. The Russian rulers are not strategists, he says; they settle their accounts day by day, attend to their own interests, and plan their gangsters’ business month by month and year by year. But the current heads of the Kremlin will never forgive the young Georgian leader his crime of pro-Western sympathies.
  • Anonymous on April 25 2010 said:
    While U.S is playing a wolrd cop, and getting it self into a major debt. Russia is slowly recovering and growing as well as stabilizing economicaly,socialy and military. Especially being next to China. I have to disagree with the statment that Russian leaders are not the strategists but bunch of gangsters. Person who said that is really ignorant. Just by looking into 1990's and the present days. Russia is greatly improved. Caucaus conflict is a financial gain to Russia that's why they are not stopping it. I believe that Putin hasn't spoke his final words yet. I believe the greater things are ahead for Russia. Russia will improve their trade with near and further countries. U.S.A will be pushed to the second and than further down the ranks in the economic influence, rather if it's like it or not. But it will happen. One of the proofs of that is Obama plan to start oil drilling in Virginia I believe. Looking forward for progress in Russia.
  • Anonymous on April 25 2010 said:
    "...by treating Islamist terrorism in the Caucasus as something Moscow deserved while 9/11 was something the US did not deserve..." - very good!
    Should we be happy for Mr. Copley, did he become a little richer? Should we believe that he does not know the casualties of Chechen war and can not compare with any casualties inflicted by US to Saudis (where most of 9/11 attackers were from)? Can Mr. Copley name any city carpet bombed by US? How one can treat Chechen war and 9/11 on the same footing?

    Answer - only when the one is biased.
    I am not saying that Moscow deserved (and, for Mr. Copley's attention, no official had said that), but, comparing this two things and seeing no difference is a blasphemy I would say, If I would be believer.
  • Anonymous on April 19 2010 said:
    Dear Dian,
    Very interesting write-up.
    Just one thing makes me a bit curious at the beginning:
    ... spurred investors rushing out of riskier commodities and into perceived safer assets such as the U.S. dollar. ...
    Maybe some more detailed explanation could help there.
    I am not so sure about 'gold' (physical) is a 'riskier'
    investment.
    We'll probably see, one day, a remainder people, who have some common sense left, will rush for the exit to fiat currencies.
    Doesn't anyone of you guys read the Bible?
    Gold is real, thus the bible uses it as type for God.
    Silver is real too, that's uses as a type for redemption of Christ, the son of God.
    Oil is real, used in the Bible as type for the Holy Spirit.
    Read the Word, it's life! Time is short! Buy the heavenly Gold, Silver and Oil.
  • Anonymous on April 19 2010 said:
    President Harry Truman once said that international finance was a mystery to most men and women.What he could have said was most men and women, to include those with some sort of education in financial economics. There is absolutely no search for an international reserve currency at the present time by persons haunting the corridors and restaurants of power, regardless of what the author of this article believes. Before moving to energy economics I taught international financial economics for at least 15 years, and absorbed enough knowledge and gossip to know that the US dollar still reigns supreme, and for very good economic and psychological reasons.
  • Anonymous on April 20 2010 said:
    interesting story. Begs the question however.. If wholesale prices have dropped by half, how come my electric bill has continued to go UP?
  • Anonymous on April 21 2010 said:
    Thinking same thing, plus state regulators letting AEP raise rate another 9+%.
  • Anonymous on April 27 2010 said:
    do you see china stopping some of their buying like copper mines and and other metal mines; in places like ecudator and countries like that in order to stop stockpiling.
  • Anonymous on April 22 2010 said:
    They tried to be evasive and but it's very clear this article is written by Riyaale and Awil. Well done UDUB, good one, but not good enough
  • Anonymous on April 22 2010 said:
    This article is not real and is properly written by the pro-Somalia camp to damage Somaliland elections and democracy.

    What a liers "analysis from GIS station Hargeisa and OTHER sources in the REGION" - faqash propaganda.

    Oilprice please check what you publish, you don't have more intelligence than the CIA and the US government, they wouldnt host Silanyo if he was pro Al Shabab.

    You insulting everyone that stand for democracy.
  • Anonymous on April 22 2010 said:
    Nice report - unlike the other commentators i feel it's a pretty balanced unbiased piece, but i guess when writing about political topics you're going to upset someone somewhere.
  • Anonymous on April 23 2010 said:
    "Mr Silanyo — who visited Washington, DC, in late 2009 — is known to be a pan-Somalist. In other words, he is known to be against the concept of a sovereign Republic of Somaliland..."

    Yes, it is def from the foreign office minister who is suppose to be taking part in an "official meeting" in Addis Ababa with "major" European powers. That is the people we lost our wealth and blood for.

    Somaliland system is just like the USA, so if this man was any good he shouldn't have worried being useful to the next government. Because he nothing but a time waster, he is fighting with tooth and nails instead to keep his gangs in government.
  • Anonymous on April 23 2010 said:
    Indeed, Kulmiye has written off the inhabitants of the Eastern and Western regions of the country. During the selection process of the previous Somaliland Elections Commission,Mr.Siiraanyo promised the party's member to the National Elections Commission to Sool region. However, without explanation scuttled the deal, thereby alienating any potential vote in that region.

    During the voter registration, KULMIYE and UCID were adamantly against any voter registration in Eastern Sanag and Sool regions. In fact, the chairmen of KULMIYE and UCID were qouted "We will not send our young enumerators to Sanaag and Sool.." This was a tacit approval of the terrritorial claims of neighbouring majertenia. This was in collaboration with INTERPEACE- The NGO contracted to conduct the voter registration in Somaliland. Therefore, how sincere is Kulmiye about the sovereignty of Somaliland?

    On March 19, 2010, a high level Somaliland delegation arrived at Washington, D.C. on an official invitation of the United States government. Mr. Bashe Mohamed Farah, the second deputy-speaker of Somaliland House of Representatives and a high ranking member of Kulmiye party was a member of the delegation. As usual, the Diaspora supporters of Kulmiye decided not to attend the delegation's meetings with the Somaliland communities in Virginia-DC area, Minesotta, and Ohio.

    It is worth to mention here that when the Somaliland community of Minesota organised a meeting with the delegation, Kulmiye supporters failed to show up at the conference hall. A kulmiye member of parliament, Mr. Omer Sanweyne, was visiting Minesotta about the sametime. The Somaliland community requested Kulmiye representatives to book Mr. Sanweyne at same hotel the Somaliland delegation was staying. Mr. Sanweyne was booked at a different hotel. Surprised, not all.

  • Anonymous on April 24 2010 said:
    Somaliland is on track on that driven by Godane of al-qaeda. That is the reality when we are telling the truth to ourselves, otherwise neither of the three running candidates would have got the chance to run when we know that there are dozens highly respected in the united nations quarters like Ali Sanyare and Adna Aden, but surely, we like something and GOD LIKES OTHER DIFFERENT
  • Anonymous on April 24 2010 said:
    as long as we have the old regime running somaliland nothing will change they all have blood on there hands we need young and fresh people to run somaliland.as for the US and the EU they are only looking after there interests not our the Us gave siad barre weapons in the 80's to kill us all and the british gave halv of somaliland a way we should never trust a white man.
  • Anonymous on April 29 2010 said:
    this clasiic propangada written by Rayale and his business partners (fake oil exploration contractors that are plundering natural resources of Somaliland)
  • Anonymous on April 24 2010 said:
    Interesting note. I wonder how long it's going to be before we get this shale gas thing clarified. I remember how after writing my oil book, in which I put in a friendly word for shale oil, an American businessman called me a "fool". That didn't please me, but he was right where that topic was cocerned, and I was wrong. Better weight before buying the good news about shale gas.
  • Anonymous on May 01 2010 said:
    What about Nat Gas? Better than coal.
  • Anonymous on May 03 2010 said:
    Sarissa Resources, that is another company on the rise. SRSR.PKThat'll be a major player soon.
  • Anonymous on July 28 2010 said:
    It's One Prius uses 2.2 kilograms of Neodymium. Others are CanAlaska in bed with GWMG on it's REE & Sierra Gold Corp. in Sierra Leone, West Africa. Note U3O8 mining gives the REE away, because it's in so small of the amount mined.
  • Anonymous on May 04 2010 said:
    There is one exponential growth curve you are forgetting: the exponential growth in technology...
  • Anonymous on May 04 2010 said:
    ...A century of low oil prices and previous lack of concern about global warming has provided very little incentive amongst the scientific community to address efficiency or find alternative energy sources; however, this is now the focal point of the scientific community. But we are only now about 5 years into putting up a real effort to solve our energy issues yet per capita oil demand has dropping steadily and this trend will grow exponentially as new technologies grow exponentially.
  • Anonymous on May 04 2010 said:
    There was a 50% increase in effiency of automobiles, but weight increases offset all but 15% of it. The chances of serious injury are half as likely in an Accord as a Fit and 1/3 in a Pilot. People have been choosing safety over money. Tech additions for safety have helped all type of vehicles, but weight is still the major factor in both safety and effiency. Do you want to use the law to mandate less safety? Is it that we are willing to kill for less oil use?
  • Anonymous on May 27 2010 said:
    I would like to offer a short tutorial on hydraulics which might help some Cafe members better understand some aspects of the discussions about shutting down the flow of oil from the runaway well in the Gulf. I have no formal training in the areas I will address and welcome any corrections. What I know, and which I believe applies to a relief well, should be understandable by any shade tree mechanic who has worked on his auto's brake system or any person who has hooked a water sprinkler to their lawn faucet. All figures I use regarding pressure and area are arbitrary and made up for the purpose of an explanation.
  • Anonymous on May 16 2010 said:
    This is (unfortunately) cogent analysis. Obama is a stuffed shirt and not nearly as smart as he thinks he is; or he is a moral reptile--take your pick.
  • Anonymous on May 06 2010 said:
    "a campaign shunned by all but a handful of scientists"-What about the 30,000 plus real scientists who have signed a statement that there is NO AGW compared to the 3000 mostly non-phd scientists supporting. It doesn't take a scientist to look at the medieval warming period to see that AGW is a farce.
  • Anonymous on May 08 2010 said:
    :-) India is growing - that is great news, but I think it needs to look for greener solutions especially for power generation. Solar and wind is biggest area where it can invest and grow faster than other countries as it has lot of sunshine.
  • Anonymous on May 07 2010 said:
    The end is here and we brought it upon ourselves. If you don't think it's going to affect you, you're sadly mistaken. Better stock up now.
  • Anonymous on May 07 2010 said:
    The potential for this catastrophe to morph into the greatest environmental disaster is indeed real - I simply hope your sources are wrong. Green technology is making great progress, but not great enough to replace the 11% of the oil America gets from her offshore rigs, at least not for another 20 years. With that said, if the worst case scenario does transpire, and 40,000 barrels, or 1.6 million gallons, of oil begin pumping daily into the marine ecosystem, I think you can safely say that popular rage will shut down America's offshore industry for 20 years.
  • Anonymous on May 07 2010 said:
    What really angers me is the bimbos at the MMS rubber stamping exemptions from safety studies, as well as the word coming out that BP decided against an extra safety valve 200 feet below the well-head. Additionally, Halliburton may have done a poor job sealing the well-head with concrete, and the rig operators on Deep Horizon ignored signs of gas buildup in the riser. It is tragic, how short sighted and stupid people can be, acting against their own long-term interests for short term rewards.
  • Anonymous on May 07 2010 said:
    :sad: :sad: :-x :cry: wow the greed of these people has got to come to an end! Any more greedy disasters and us humans are not gonna take it anymore, revolt and tell our governments they are corrupt and let us live our lives. now we have to live with one of the biggest ecological & economically, human created, environmental disaster this world has ever seen, if it is true water has conciseness, than karma is a bitch! Love to everyone!
  • Anonymous on May 07 2010 said:
    As someone that lives on the Gulf Coast, and is in the path of the spill, I can tell you that we are scared to death. Business is already dead. One of my clients lost $550,000 of rental bookings in a 72 hour window this week. My business went from doing about $2,000 a week, to only $300 since the spill. We are getting no assistance from the government. Nothing from BP. We don't have any officials telling us were to go for assistance. It is going to devastate the tourist industry where we live.I tell everyone this to say this. Don't argue the damn politics of this now. Now is the time to help if you can help and pray if you can't. You are talking about LIVES getting destroyed. ECOSYSTEMS getting destroyed. Can we not wait to talk about the politics of it, after those of us in the path of this don't have their lives hanging in the balance?
  • Anonymous on May 07 2010 said:
    Political coruption + Reckless greed = Death
  • Anonymous on May 07 2010 said:
    Galveston , Texas : This is where I am currently a resident, and there are still Windstorm damaged homes and business's that have been totally ran out of town. The seafood industry is what supported the galveston Community alot the last year. They have/were tossing around the idea of putting in Casino's there to make the city come alive again. Well, now they have what they need if tey can direct this oil in the right direction. ON A SIDE NOTE, I LOVE THE BEACH AND TAKE MY KIDS THERE OFTEN. ABOUT A YEAR AGO, I NOTICED BLACK BLOBS WASHING UP ON SHORE, I PROBABLY SAW 20-30 in the few hours we were there. There has always been loose oil out in the gulf. Whenever you are doing this much drilling, its inevitable not to have some wash up. I wonder how much damage that has done on the ocean besides the major leaks like this one that they have had to report. Anyhow, keep you guys informed on what i see. And will try and get some pictures as well.
  • Anonymous on May 07 2010 said:
    I think the point is, we may all be "in the path of it". It is not the politics at the root of this, that is merely a symptom. The root issue is about greed and the desire of a few to have far, far more than the many without concern for the general well being of their fellows. Maybe this is the beginning of a new world order of a different kind. The greed heads are blowing it and causing incomprehensible pain and damage to people and our planet. We have to stop this, before the few gluttons amongst us, take us all down with them.
  • Anonymous on May 07 2010 said:
    So while our guvment is sitting on their hands figuring out how to protect BP our beaches, fishing industry and pretty much our whole way of life is being destroyed? Exactly what I'd expect out of a bunch of incompetent lawyers. I've got an idea! How about getting this thing capped figuring out how much it cost to do it and then figuring out how much BP is responsible for? Oh wait, because BP is in bed with our guvment and we're going to fit the bill for their incompetence once again! You wonder why these empty suits can't stand the Constitution? Because they are exactly what the Constitution protects us from. Where's all the rich folks throughout the world who are planning this Global Guvment who could come to our aide? That's right, they just care about lining their pockets with our gold. They really don't give a crap about you or I or saving the environment. It's just about how to remain in power and crap on our faces. When are the people going to wake up?
  • Anonymous on May 07 2010 said:
    My heart goes to you Ma. I live in FL and reading this article just killed me. I'm always in the water here. I can't believe in a time when our guvment should be doing something other than playing politics as usual WE THE PEOPLE are getting screwed coming and going. It's gone far enough! We shouldn't have to wait till elections to get these traitors thrown out on their butts. It time for a clean sweep in our guvment. Impeach every last one of them for their corruption and greed. Article 2 Section 4 of THE US CONSTITUTION!The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.They've stolen our money through bailouts, gotten us deeper and deeper in war to where now we're their enemy if we speak out about their corruption and still we sit back and complain. It's going to get ugly in this country.
  • Anonymous on May 07 2010 said:
    Why are we drilling at such extreme depths? We have natural gas aplenty. The shale gas deposits which we can access now with the technology brought online over the last 5 years are massive. We are talking centuries of relatively clean fuel.To give you an idea of how much we could convert all coal and nuclear plants and all autos to run on it and still have 5-6 decades of fuel. It is truly a massive gift dropped in our laps. Unless we are lazy, complacent and downright stupid beyond belief (could happen but I hope not) we can figure out making renewables cost effective and bring the LiFTR nuclear tech online way before the gas runs out.Why bother take the risk with drilling in these extreme depths and threatening fisheries around the world? It makes no sense.
  • Anonymous on May 07 2010 said:
    The gears of the machine are grinding to a halt. They are manufacturing disasters and crashing the economy to seize control of the masses. Either that or they really are this stupid in which case we are all doomed anyway. Welcome to the brave new world. Take your Soma and relax. Theres nothing to worry about. Its just the end of the world.
  • Anonymous on May 07 2010 said:
    NIGHTMARE!! PURE HELL!! I KNOW because I am a VICTIM of the 1989 EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL in Prince William Sound,ALASKA. The oil industry is killing our way of life on the oceans and shorelines. THIS MUST STOP!!!! POISONING the ENVIROMENT and the people who depend on those resoruces!!!!
  • Anonymous on May 07 2010 said:
    On a side note, Exxon still hasn't paid any money, they have kept it in the courts this long!
  • Anonymous on May 07 2010 said:
    ALL of BP assets should be confiscated and used for the cleanup and compensation. If any is left after this is completed, it can be returned to them. NOT ONE CENT of any gov. money should be used for any of this.
  • Anonymous on May 08 2010 said:
    Time for me to awake? I have the solution to all earths problems. All on earth focus collective thought at the same time. Everyone stops the pursuit for money and stuff to solve this problem. There are no limits to collective thought.
  • Anonymous on May 08 2010 said:
    Total money donated by BP to Obama's campaign: $71,000Total money raised by Obama's campaign: $500,000,000+For those who have problems in math, that means BP gave less than 0.02% of the total money Obama had.Why again should Obama worry about protecting this "large" donor?
  • Anonymous on May 08 2010 said:
    [quote name="Tim"]Why are we drilling at such extreme depths? We have natural gas aplenty. The shale gas deposits which we can access now with the technology brought online over the last 5 years are massive. We are talking centuries of relatively clean fuel.To give you an idea of how much we could convert all coal and nuclear plants and all autos to run on it and still have 5-6 decades of fuel. It is truly a massive gift dropped in our laps. Unless we are lazy, complacent and downright stupid beyond belief (could happen but I hope not) we can figure out making renewables cost effective and bring the LiFTR nuclear tech online way before the gas runs out.Why bother take the risk with drilling in these extreme depths and threatening fisheries around the world? It makes no sense.[/quote]America's crude oil and Natural gas is in decline, that is why.
  • Anonymous on May 08 2010 said:
    (((box over oil gusher has just been removed due to build up of ice)))
  • Anonymous on May 09 2010 said:
    [quote name="Mac"]As someone that lives on the Gulf Coast, and is in the path of the spill, I can tell you that we are scared to death. Business is already dead. One of my clients lost $550,000 of rental bookings in a 72 hour window this week. My business went from doing about $2,000 a week, to only $300 since the spill. We are getting no assistance from the government. Nothing from BP. We don't have any officials telling us were to go for assistance. It is going to devastate the tourist industry where we live.I tell everyone this to say this. Don't argue the damn politics of this now. Now is the time to help if you can help and pray if you can't. You are talking about LIVES getting destroyed. ECOSYSTEMS getting destroyed. Can we not wait to talk about the politics of it, after those of us in the path of this don't have their lives hanging in the balance?[/quote]Live in Shreveport, really praying for you guys. Have faith God will see us all through this.
  • Anonymous on May 09 2010 said:
    @Tim"Why are we drilling at such extreme depths? We have natural gas aplenty. The shale gas deposits which we can access now with the technology brought online over the last 5 years are massive. We are talking centuries of relatively clean fuel."You don't know what you are talking about, get some real information
  • Anonymous on May 10 2010 said:
    [quote name="Mac"]As someone that lives on the Gulf Coast, and is in the path of the spill, I can tell you that we are scared to death. Business is already dead. One of my clients lost $550,000 of rental bookings in a 72 hour window this week. My business went from doing about $2,000 a week, to only $300 since the spill. We are getting no assistance from the government. Nothing from BP. We don't have any officials telling us were to go for assistance. It is going to devastate the tourist industry where we live. [/quote]What kind of assistance do you want from the government (i.e. the taxpayer). It seems to me that you should be approaching BP for help and not the government. Not sure what kind of help you want or need. I am sorry that you live in an area that is being devastated, that is the luck of the draw for anyone.
  • Anonymous on May 10 2010 said:
    i keep hearing about the oil in the water, so much oil... the effects are huge, but what happens after the first hurricane rolls threw this year, picking up alot of that oil and raining it down on shore, how far north could it reach????
  • Anonymous on May 10 2010 said:
    Anyone who drives a car for than the utmost urgent reason contributes to these oil giants quest to supply you with the oil you want for your car. Get rid of cars now.
  • Anonymous on May 10 2010 said:
    With over 2 BILLION gallons of heavy crude Oil which specifically contains nearly 50% Asphalt, I'm sure something will come up before all 2 BILLION gallons is squeezed out of the Mercado Field by the enormous pressure of the Ocean at 5,000 feet deep (over 2,000 lbs per square inch).Since Asphalt is nearly non-biodegradable it's a sure bet a great percentage of those toxic cancerous Petro-Chemicals are going to remain in the Gulf of Mexico for decades joining the largest pre-existing DEAD ZONE in the entire world and greatly expanding it. A monument of morass to the Republican Big Oil greed.
  • Anonymous on May 10 2010 said:
    The official misinformation and cover-up for this disaster is unprecedented since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Yes we can!The Gulf of Mexico will become Obama's own Aral Sea. Good job by the Marxists.
  • Anonymous on May 10 2010 said:
    @Tim: That wonderful new technology of getting natural gas from shale deposits involves pumpin millions of gallons of a toxic stew into those deposits to break up the shale and release the gas. This results in the contamination of the ground water. So instead of ruining the salt water of the Gulf, you destroy the fresh water source for drinking and irrigation.Educate yourself about it at www.un-naturalgas.org
  • Anonymous on May 10 2010 said:
    The oil companies are focused and concerned to keep making record profits, but are lacking empathy towards the thousands of tourist businesses they hurt through these disasters. They cause such pain on humanity and the eco-system, yet arrogantly and blindly fight for their "rights" in court. Amazing!!! Their ability to exact profit must be based on their ability to safely harvest oil in order for our world to be safe for all mankind, animals, and plants (living things).
  • Anonymous on May 10 2010 said:
    Dick Cheney took the Audio BOP swith off the list of drillers requirements during his closed door energy meetings. VP Cheney relaxed the drilling standards and allowing this to happen
  • Anonymous on May 11 2010 said:
    Sorry folks any or ALL bailouts are reserved for BIG BANKS only;Put any notions of that to rest right nowThey may be LOANS avialable to clean up/rebuild business
  • Anonymous on May 12 2010 said:
    This is worse than 9-11.
  • Anonymous on May 13 2010 said:
    We need to gear up for cleaning this mess. There is no reason why we can't retrofit a portion of our submarine fleet with filtration systems and storage tanks for crude. If we build up our extraction of crude to be higher than the dumping of crude, we can at least begin to stop the problem until the ocean of crude looses enough pressure...even if it takes years. Hell, they've been spraying the skies now for 13 years with BaO2 and AlO2. Let's just filter seawater until the well goes limp. We have desalinization plants to filter everything else out of seawater, why can't we just filter crude out?
  • Anonymous on May 13 2010 said:
    It is time to change all of society and we have the power to do so if enough listens and get the message that I been reading here today.We need to elimate the cause of greed and destruction of the planet.To see how go to the Venus project web page. TheVenusProject.com and theZeitgeistmovement.com[quote name="Mike"]I think the point is, we may all be "in the path of it". It is not the politics at the root of this, that is merely a symptom. The root issue is about greed and the desire of a few to have far, far more than the many without concern for the general well being of their fellows. Maybe this is the beginning of a new world order of a different kind. The greed heads are blowing it and causing incomprehensible pain and damage to people and our planet. We have to stop this, before the few gluttons amongst us, take us all down with them.[/quote]
  • Anonymous on May 19 2010 said:
    When people see dead dolphins, manatees, birds and other marine wildlife wash up on the beaches the anger of the entire population of the states affected by the oil spill will mount and BP had better clean it up fast or the stink will drive people away and it is possible that entire cities will be forced to evacuate. Yes, I agree that BP should be nationalized by the U.S. government so as to insure they will not pick up stakes and never return to the U.S. and never pay the claims that it will be ordered by the courts to pay. Millions of of people will lose their jobs and livelihood for the rest of their lives and will BP pay those people for the rest of their lives? I seriously doubt it. All of the assets of BP need to be seized by the U.S. government now and not later as BP will leave the U.S., never pay what they said they will pay and never have any dealings with any U.S. firm as there will be a court order preventing any U.S. firm from dealing with BP.
  • Anonymous on May 21 2010 said:
    this is one horrible disaster for all living creatures of the earth.once again greedy bastards have taken and killed another part of our country.this mess will never b cleaned up.animals will die, eco systems will die ,and eventually we will die as well,from all the pollution in our air ,land ,and water.our lives as we know them,are quickly comming to an end.what are we leaving behind for our children?tell me how are we supposed to be proud americans,when surrounded by disgrace.
  • Anonymous on May 24 2010 said:
    don't look to natural gas too quickly. we are headed toward a back to nature experiment we are not prepared for. the natural gas shale hydrofracking has similar potential for disaster - especially the horizontal drilling. The toxic escape into the aquafirs in the vicinity cannot be cleared from the drinking water. Freedom, NY will NEVER have fresh drinking water again from a toxic hydrofracking accident. One town, but if the wells get contaminated, the entire aquafir is at risk.
  • Anonymous on May 25 2010 said:
    This is the most disgusting mess I have ever heard of. America's political structure is a failure, and the greed and war mongering "Elites" should be hanging from lamp poles. No one but an absolute moron can fail to see that unending competitive consumption based capitalism is on the face unsustainable. America used to be a country of pride and hope. Thanks again, for the war in Iraq, the Exxon valdez, the global financial crisis, and the Gulf of Mexico. When will people wake up?
  • Anonymous on May 30 2010 said:
    Is it really possible that no one powerful person in the world can stand up and say out loud, "We must all pull together now to stop this monstrous thing from occurring! We must all work together to stop the destruction that is threatening our entire nation!"Is there no one? No President, or government agent, or reporter or business leader or ANYONE? No one will stand up and say, We must stop this!"Damn, what would it take to start a nationwide cleanup movement? Kids are getting out of school for summer. Why not start a government-paid conservation corps?
  • Anonymous on June 06 2010 said:
    Unlike most of you, I am not optimistic that this obscene screw-up is going to usher in a new era of energy independence for us. Our energy infrastructure is hard-wired for petroleum - it will take 20 years to fundamentally change it - the corporate bullies know this and they will continue to grind away until they get their way.
  • Anonymous on June 07 2010 said:
    I wonder if BP will have to file bankrupcy over this when Obama initiates a federal boycot and claims and law suits keep stacking up.
  • Anonymous on June 07 2010 said:
    I say DEATH BY DROWNING IN THE OIL SOAKED GULF FOR ALL AT BP and whoever else is involved.
  • Anonymous on June 07 2010 said:
    As far as nationalizing BP goes, The IRS cofiscated a brothel in Nevada and could not make a profit. If the federal government cann't make a profit running a whorehouse in a state where prostitution is legal, do you really think it can run the third largest refinery in th US? That would be the BP reinery at Texas City, Tx. That is just one of BP's assets in the US. BP should be forced to SELL it's US assets to Exxon or Shell and the money used for the Gulf disaster.
  • Anonymous on June 08 2010 said:
    I am tickled to death that we have such a "seasoned and knowledgeable" administration to deal with this. It is particularly warming to learn that they are also protecting those who paid for their campaigns. Glenn Beck is correct... we have done it to ourselves. Let's just go ahead and pledge our unfaltering allegiance to them rather than some old parchment called the Constitution. While we're at it, let's go ahead and dispose of the Bill of Rights. Dictators don't require such documents... nor do they typically abide by them.
  • Anonymous on June 08 2010 said:
    this is the worst global disaster ever in TIME!!!as we know it the blackness will cover our own minds we are all doomed to see the end of time man was never meant to take this precious substance called OIL really i hope that some higher power will save us!!!!
  • Anonymous on June 08 2010 said:
    IMPORTANT -BP sold 45%of its shares two weeks before the disaster - same game as 9/11.ENVIRONMENTAL TERRORISTS. All people of the world should unite and sue BP. :cry:
  • Anonymous on June 08 2010 said:
    Oilgeddon will make Obamageddon look like a baby lamb.Speaking of lambs, check out The American Sheeple website. Click on the top scrolling banner for the latest on Oilgeddon. You'll be glad you did.Baaa!
  • Anonymous on June 08 2010 said:
    The planet is being prepared to witness supernatural solutions, including salvation from supernatural deception.
  • Anonymous on June 08 2010 said:
    Please explain the math behind the following claim in the story: "..if its [BP] assets were nationalized, could fetch almost a trillion dollars for compensation purposes."?How do you get $1T from privatising BP? Do you liquidate and sell all their assets (minus their liabilities)? Your best estimate of what you could 'get' from privatising BP is to look at their market value before the spill. I say this is your 'best' estimate because the markets not only account for the value of cash and other fixed assets and liabilities, more importantly, they place a value on all the oil they own and have access to refine. It is currently 'only' trading at a market capitalisation of $115B due to the spill. However, before the spill BP was valued at almost twice that, say $230B. How do you "get" $1T from a $230B company?
  • Anonymous on June 08 2010 said:
    What the US Government won't tell you is that we haven't needed oil for over 50 years! We've been using Tesla free energy technology in secret since the 60's at least! Tesla had the technology working almost 100 years ago and the US Government got all of his notes and papers on it upon his death. Many whistle blowers have come forward that have worked on this technology - it's REAL! The US Government is responsible for this oil spill and all others because they have kept this technology away from humanity to milk us like cows for a fuel we don't need. This is the dirty little secret. Google "project nsearch" to learn what else they have lied to you sometime.
  • Anonymous on June 08 2010 said:
    I predict many many starving and dying people on the earth. What will we do if we can not use the oceans for our food supply?
  • Anonymous on June 08 2010 said:
    I am certain NOBODY truly has a concept of EXACTLY what this will cause to happen in the long term. Between the oil and the chemical dispersants, I fully expect this WILL kill most life in the Gulf Coast area. Additionally, when a massive die off of such nature occurs, it will effect ecosystems worldwide. The Gulf Loop current will keep things in circulation for years, and anything that can follow the currents up the East Coast, into the Grand Banks, and over to Europe. We truly do not understand the inter-connectedness of the planet,. Unfortunately. we are now going to find all this out the hard way. Well, get ready, 'cause it's coming.
  • Anonymous on June 08 2010 said:
    The US does not use its natural gas reserves for automobiles because doing so would collapse the world's oil market and cost millions of US jobs; almost everyone would be able to fill up their car with natural gas connections at home.
  • Anonymous on June 08 2010 said:
    The end is here but we did not bring it upon ourselves. The same names keep popping up or have you NOT noticed. The federal government reads like a phone book from tel aviv and the jews that did 9/11 are back again folks. This time to finisht the job for their Rothschild handlers and the Kenya puppet that the Cool-Aid, mudBall watching sheeple thought they could trust. The Big Sleep is here..... :zzz
  • Anonymous on June 08 2010 said:
    Other rigs in the gulf pump out 150,000 barrels of oil PER DAY!SO- that means this well is also spewing about about 100K-150K per day, TOO.There is a blackout on the amount of oil in the gulf "the gulf of oil" that is. - yes its a conspiracy, of great magnitude.
  • Anonymous on June 08 2010 said:
    they wont freeze the assets of bp because bp is mostly owned by trans com which is an AMERICAN company.
  • Anonymous on June 08 2010 said:
    [Word on the street is there is a massive mineral deposit under the wetlands. In order to condemn this area the wetlands have to be dead.Besides WW111 the oil spill check out the polar shift Planet X no one can hide from it December 21, 2010
  • Anonymous on June 08 2010 said:
    people get what they deserve. maybe not everyone deserves hell, but once people have been reduced to a state of dependence, the game is all but over. dependence breeds those with power, which always corrupts.anyway, intentional or not, maybe it opens a few more eyes and ears. these things would not happen if we were true to the pre-1859 Constitution, and remained a country of land-owner electors, living fairly independently.for everything would be under the care of the land-owers, and in their interests. at this time, our "voter democracy" is ruled by landless dependents that generate a corrupt power structure. so can you really expect otherwise?
  • Anonymous on June 09 2010 said:
    I am shocked that we are not only trying to appease ourselves of our complicity in this, but that we want to go even deeper into ecology-destroying madness. SHALE??!! Do you know how much water shale production uses? Would you like a glass of water with that SUV? Not to mention the toxic mess left over. Same with the oil sands x 1000.We have truly and literally become insane with our addiction to oil. If we really wanted to do something intelligent, we'd STOP BUYING $H!T.
  • Anonymous on June 10 2010 said:
    I have been in contact with a company that has a product that can get rid of most but all of the surface and lower oil. Right now it is going thur EPA approval. The product is a microbe. It was used in Galveston, TX on a tanker spill. It work beyond expectations. It is already approved in FL but the are waiting to be called.The microbes are natural and eat the oil and then die with no toxic effects to marine life. I am waiting to hear when it is approved.The recovery time will be about 3 months I think. If it had been started sooner, recovery would have been sooner. If approved it can be a on going and keep the oil at bay until it is capped.
  • Anonymous on June 10 2010 said:
    Lets get our facts right - Oil Spill BP owned well that blew Transocean owned the rig & Halliburton Co conducted key tests right before the event http://bit.ly/dmw2cobefore condemnationAn investigation is required. I don´t know for sure but the operatives on the rig were probably all Americans. They say the BP instructions were to cut corners but can we see this in black and white - Remember you are innocent until proove guilty. Here on this website you report "Obama administration also conspired with BP"Who should go then Hayward´s head or Obama´s head?
  • Anonymous on June 11 2010 said:
    There isn't a "chasm" that has to be cemented,it is a BOP that is malfunctioning and until we have proof of other sources of oil we should refrain from repeating them online.Little fibs may make great conversation,but the truth(which is paramount) gets lost in the chatter.
  • Anonymous on June 11 2010 said:
    What really angers me is the bimbos at the MMS rubber stamping exemptions from safety studies, as well as the word coming out that BP decided against an extra safety valve 200 feet below the well-head. Additionally, Halliburton may have done a poor job sealing the well-head with concrete, and the rig operators on Deep Horizon ignored signs of gas buildup in the riser. It is tragic, how short sighted and stupid people can be, acting against their own long-term interests for short term rewards.you really shouldn't say that the workers ignored signs... they were told by bp to stop with the mudd and use seawater becaused they were 5 weeks behind schedule... don't say things unless you know the truth...
  • Anonymous on June 13 2010 said:
    Czech To Goldenfoxx #22 What kind of assistance do you want from the government (i.e. the taxpayer). It seems to me that you should be approaching BP for help and not the government. Not sure what kind of help you want or need. I am sorry that you live in an area that is being devastated, that is the luck of the draw for anyone.She was talking about assistance from BP.
  • Anonymous on June 13 2010 said:
    Czech , This spill is sitting on top of an oilfield the size of Mt Everest with possibly a cracked seabed subfloor. Take a good look at Gulf Shores ,Ala. on wkrg.com . Your beaches all along the florida west coast and Florida east coast all the way up the Eastern Seaboard will look the same ! BP will not be able to contain this fast enough if they can at all!! I live in Orange Beach , Alabama. You would not believe the "NO FLY ZONE" cover up going on unless you saw it here.
  • Anonymous on June 14 2010 said:
    How many of these people that are affected now are the same people that were begging for offshore drilling only a year or so ago? Be honest, now.
  • Anonymous on June 16 2010 said:
    To build a 'civilisation' on the foundations of finite energy resources, that are polluting, expensive, dangerous and owned by a cartel of monopolies is insane. It can only lead to one outcome - total global pollution followed by total collapse of oil based economies. These guys have shackled us to this 120 year old internal combustion engine 'technology' nightmare to maintain their insane monopoly. The solutions to infinite clean and free have long existed, beginning with Tesla...
  • Anonymous on June 24 2010 said:
    Has anyone mentioned all the emissions from the oil gusher into the air? The greenhouse gases and all the other pollutants and volatile organic compounds being released into the air. Where are the environmentalists? What is this doing to the global climate change fanatics?
  • Anonymous on June 26 2010 said:
    And it just keeps getting worse, watch these videos to learn why.http://www.environmental.builderspot.com/BP_GULF_OIL_DISASTER_GOV_COVERUP_TRUTH_2012.html
  • Anonymous on June 27 2010 said:
    There is a company with a COMPLETELY NON TOXIC dispersant that accelerates the breakdown of the oil dramatically....like 30 days instead of millions of years. It's been used in the Everglades with 100% success. This company cannot get ANYONE to respond to them. Instead, BP insists on using the chemicals that are more toxic than the oil. These airborne chemicals are also blowing inland so now evacuations are being discussed. Read about the non toxic product here: http://www.1888pressrelease.com/a-a-a-construction-development-80269-company-pr.htmlNow start writing to everyone at BP and the government to demand the use of this available product that WON'T kill us all in the process!(And no, I have no connection with this company whatsoever, I just have common sense.) Even in the depths of a crisis of epic proportions, the greed and stupidity of the *privileged* knows no bounds.
  • Anonymous on May 20 2010 said:
    The first article about piracy off the coast of Somalia that acknoledges the cause of the piracy, though this article only acknoledged one cause and ignored another major and hugely important factor.Besides illegal fishing foreign contries, criminal organisations, companies, governments, and other organisations were responsible for and directly parttaking in the dumping of nuclear, toxic and industrial wast in the waters of Somalia. Whern the 2004 (?) Tsunami reached the somali coat facing the indian ocean it brought up manny of these barrels and containers and subsequently the local population became very ill, children were born with severe abnormalities, and people died of rediation poisoning.So there you go. Furthermore, it hasnt stopped. take the taiwanse fishing boat captured off the coast, all the chemical tankers!!! And no the world's navy's are protecting them.
  • Anonymous on May 08 2010 said:
    I caution every one reading an article penned by an Indian about pakistan to swallow with a dollop of salt. Just as one would handicap a article by a Turk on Greece or Armenia, Indians are always eager to one up their neighbors.As far as international nuclear regime is concerned, it is plain that India, Pakistan and Israel have to be accounted for in some fashion. Also since the stated Obama strategy for terror is to nurture a strong secularizing and democratizing Pakistan to stabilize South Central Asia, it is in US interest to see that Pakistan quickly overcomes its energy deficit and begins to prosper without relying too much on Iranian gas. A Pakistan reliant on Iranians more than US would be bad even for Indians. Just as a strong prosperous Turkish state furthers US interests in the Balkans, Caucases, Levant; an equally prosperous Pakistan will serve longterm US interests in Central Asia, Southern Asia, and Persian Gulf & Middle east regions.
  • Anonymous on May 12 2010 said:
    Once again the socialist global warming alarmists seem to have gotten it wrong. After all the other predictions that they have made which turned out not just wrong but the opposite of what really turned out to be the case is it any wonder why anyone should listen to anything that they have to say?
  • Anonymous on May 12 2010 said:
    Any global cooling will do nothing to relieve the acidification of the ocean and its detrimental effect on marine life. Without a reduction of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide life in the oceans will continue to be threatened with extinction.
  • Anonymous on May 12 2010 said:
    :sigh: While I understand Global Warming alarmists, it's like understanding why children sometimes do bad things. But to answer Rocketman, the reason why people keep believing what Liberals have to say is because spin doctoring has become such a sophisticated art. Most people will believe anything if it's said in a convincing way.
  • Anonymous on May 13 2010 said:
    CO2 levels will need to rise to at least 2100 PPM before the oceans even get close to being 'acidic.' And it has already been proven thru numerous peer-reviwed papers that the corals have what it takes to handle it, as do the mollusks and the fish and the...'Not gonna Happen.' ~ George Bush, Sr.
  • Anonymous on May 12 2010 said:
    YEh, but the areas where natural methane is released have ecosystems that have taken thousands of years to adapt, and even thrive as a result. The human created disasters upset the ecosystem that can't possibly have time to adjust.
  • Anonymous on May 14 2010 said:
    Hey, Al, Try 20,000 barrels/day or more. Simple math, Al. BP pays $500,000/day to use the rig. How many barrels does that equate to - at wholesale? Do a little research, Al. More and more scientists are dsiputing BP's figures and certainly do not believe ANYTHING BP tells us. Why do you think Obama turned it into a national security issue? Right - to keep nosy reporters from getting too close. BP has refused assistance from any org or people who could blow their cover story. Nice try, though, Al.
  • Anonymous on May 12 2010 said:
    While your study shows Wind Energy to be more expensive, a lot of factors are not taken into account. One the use of the grid for transportation will shift energy use to the grid which will eventually help with our oil dependence on foreign nations that really dont like us very much. I am for the higher rates to get away from Mideast strife! You show nuclear as a cheaper alternative even though the waste issue has never been solved.
  • Anonymous on June 14 2010 said:
    Many U.S. cities are located on the coast. Off shore wind turbines would also be located along the coast. Nuclear power plants and large coal plants are not normally located inside or even near large cities. The article does not explain why wind turbines would add longer range power lines. In land we already have high voltage lines running across mountains, near lakes and through the plains. Why not locate the new turbines near the existing grid?The article also uses just on-shore wind. It does not explain the difference between "carbon costs" and "fuel cost". The only source of information for this article is a report from the Nuclear Energy Agency. The NEA has good reason to be biased and the charts use poorly defined terms.
  • Anonymous on May 28 2011 said:
    In response to #1 and #2.Nuclear power plants can be very small (some aircraft carriers have 8) and located just a few miles outside a city. On-Shore wind turbines have to be located on ridges where the wind blows to be most economical. As the closest and best ridges get filled, more and more distant ridges must be used. The farther the generation from the need, the greater the loss in transmission. Off-shore wind power is even more expensive than on-shore in almost all cases. So, with wind power, we see the law of diminishing returns.Solutions that reduce nuclear waste by well over 95% have been developed. Though they have not yet all been implemented. Nuclear power does not generate a large carbon dioxide footprint. And, at today's requirements, there is enough nuclear fuel to power the globe for over one million years. So, regardless of what we do with wind, it seems nuclear will be a necessity in the near future.
  • Anonymous on May 13 2010 said:
    The scattergun method of undocumented assertions works well -- as long as you don't have to back them up.
  • Anonymous on May 17 2010 said:
    It is not difficult to see what to do to stop the oil from escaping in to the environment and to be able to collect it. Too bad that nobody is looking at fabric tent structures. http://www.tentnology.com/tent-gallery/fabric-structures.aspxSee images #2, #3, & #8 for what could be placed over the pipe and leak to conduct the oil and gas to a 20 foot diameter fabric tube to fabric storage tanks floating at the surface for the retrieval of the oil and gas. Any frozen slush would melt in the warm gulf water.
  • Anonymous on May 12 2010 said:
    The article starts out by saying that the problem in Greece is nothing to be worried about (presumably the author heard about the three people burnt alive in a central bank?) then ends with a warning that we should be prepared for the day when the US economy completely collapses!Can't help but feel that the whole thing is just someone filling a page with the set number of words.
  • Anonymous on May 12 2010 said:
    Robert: With all due respect. CAPEX AND OPEX on PBR's, harvesters and extraction systems haave come down substantially within the last year. The National Algae Associations' Engineering Consortium has been working on the design of 100 acre commercial algae production plants and due to economies of scale costs keep going down. The engineering consortium is made up of the largest water process engineering, growing, harvesting and extraction firms in the world. If you want to see the latest CAPEX and OPEX for the industry, you may want to contact them. Algae production plants are are being built today throughout the US.
  • Anonymous on May 12 2010 said:
    A formal recognition to the Repbulic of Somaliland can minimize the pirate activities in major parts of the Somaliland waters and Red sea corridor as a result Nato Forces could focus else where in these waters. more iportantaly Somaliland could be a role model to the failed state of Somalia and Puntland.Israel is the onlky brave country who is willing to recognize Somaliland as it once did in 1960.Jasom Wiliams
  • Anonymous on May 13 2010 said:
    Great overview of a complex situation. Would be nice to see an in depth analysis of the legal impediments to bringing these brigands to justice; and also a critique of the posturing and hand-wringing by certain governments, operating companies and the IMO over arming the crew (with the active discouragement by the underwriters and security firms I'm sure). Before the 20th century no ship ever put to sea unarmed. I've had rifles, shotguns and pistols aboard my ship for 25 years. We vet those assigned to the reaction team with a background check and conduct annual live-fire training. No one has ever been shot or even winged!
  • Anonymous on May 14 2010 said:
    Brett, somaliland is involved in the piracy however it is done using "other means" for example read the story of captain weerewansa a sri lankan captain who's vessel was caught outside somaliland waters and then was jailed for months and terrorised by government officials who demanded he pay "$2.5 million" fine for not having shipping certifications.you can read the ordeal of this poor man herehttp://www.dailynews.lk/2010/04/09/fea20.aspRecognizing somaliland doesn't stop piracy, even the navies of the world can't stop it!!! the only thing that can stop piracy is to help people on the ground who venture off to piracy. By creating jobs for these people would seriously reduce piracy and to install coastguard that can effectively patrol Puntland sea would end it!!! The whole issue arose because foreign vessels steal fish from their ocean, they counter-act by stealing from ships. Both forms of piracy needs to stop for any viable solution.
  • Anonymous on May 16 2010 said:
    Very interesting topic. There are many things that were raised in this article which were very interesting.I wonder how exactly the author of this article knows how the hierarchy of the pirates is structured, just out of curiosity because without talking to them or observing them it would be very difficult to say.Moving on, the author completely fails to even mention the cause or how piracy originated. It is not as if the people woke up and said today we are going to hijack some ships.Basically, what happended was thta after the government of SOmalia fell, the waters of the country were fished in illigally, nuclear, toxic and industrial waste was dumped in the waters. The consequences were that people living around the cost became very ill, children were born dead or with severe defects, there was no fish or livelyhoods left for the domestic people. These original actions and consequences are completely ignored.
  • Anonymous on May 16 2010 said:
    Whats worse, is that it hasn't stopped. There was recently a taiwanese fishing boat captures, my question not how or why, by for what reason was a TAIWANESE FISHING boat in SOMALI waters, ill leave the maths to you. All these chemical and 'oil' tankers, for all we know they are still dumping the toxic waste.Now thirdly, randsoms paid for the realease of boats amounts to millions of dollars a year. The question is where does the money go. there are no banks in somalia, ther is nothing woth that much in the local area and we haven't seen deliriously high inflation in the country so who really does get the money. Are the Somalis just foot soldiers?, who are the masterminds of this operation. Why are the worlds greatest armies and navy's unable to apprehend a few futile, scarcily armed nomads. A significant amount of money has been shows to go to Kenya and is invested there.
  • Anonymous on March 20 2011 said:
    Planet of Earth Energy Crisis.Dear SirSubject mater all our the World facing Energy problem So I am try to explaina idea for Old & New Dams / Reservoirs Hydel Civil Design can move inarchitectural Transition to increase our energy potential Because we arelosing heavy quantum of already storage water in our Big Dams to generatepast technology now need to convert into New theory of Technology.Thanks.with best regards.
  • Anonymous on May 14 2010 said:
    very wrong assesment of Jonathan and the prevailing mood in the nation that favours and clamours for a Jonathan presidency.
  • Anonymous on May 14 2010 said:
    Even though I am from the South-South, I will not vote for Jonathan because he got to where he is today because of the arrangement of PDP and cannot turn against their arrangement of South then North and so on simply because he got to the presidency as a result of the death of Yaradua. He does not even have a base in the South South not to talk of other parts of the country.
  • Anonymous on May 15 2010 said:
    the analysis is very wrong. are u implying that nigeria should continue to be run by few political juganuts? thesame people that imposed both Obasanjo and Yaradua on us? who do they think they are? let them go run thier homes. I must vote for change... Vote Dr Jonathan. Besides, the PDP accord is wrong. we have North, East, West and South-South... any meaningful accord should have those regions. period
  • Anonymous on November 23 2010 said:
    The reserves in North Sea will in time come to an end, which will lead to come importing.
  • Anonymous on May 17 2010 said:
    This is an excellent document. It is exactly what we need - where by we I mean myself and my students.The important thing now is to keep simplifying the oil story until ALL of the decision makers, movers and shakers, and main men and women get the message, and to carry out this noble task now instead of later.
  • Anonymous on July 21 2010 said:
    This is scary stuff. About 3 years ago "I got religion" understanding the dior position the world is now in. I have done numerous speeches for INDA, the association I work for. Most people are totally ignorant of peak oil and that is a scary thought. I would like to use your three figures in the articlee and they summarize the world's sitution concisely.Ian Butler
  • Anonymous on May 18 2010 said:
    8) Cheap food is one of the bases of this System of systems. The less people have to spend on food, the more they spend on crap. The less they have to work to live, the less value there is to their lives, and so they sell themselves for less and less money. There isn't really any solution except collapse and restarting. Getting enough of the fringe educated to starting without losing their souls to money is the trick. When a species evolves, the majority doesn't survive and adapt to the change in environment: they die and the fringe that is born for the new environment survives. History is written by the survivors, and whatever God they adopt will hate all of the same things they do: Money hates poor people.
  • Anonymous on June 13 2010 said:
    NDN is heavily dependent on Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd. They initially contracted a range of small and mid-size land transport agencies through the Caucasus - but now seem to rely heavily on Agility to do their contracting. Apart from the recent court blemish hitting Agility, wouldn't it make more sense to continue using a variety of dependable Caucasus agents directly. This eliminates the Agility middleman and their "costly percentage" and also encourages/supports the regional firms which will be needed in the long term. Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd know them and could re-engage quite quickly.
  • Anonymous on May 19 2010 said:
    This is just plain silly. What kind of Pot are you smoking girl? "This will be a lifestyle of simplicity, cooperation, and deep connection with nature and our fellow humans.", straight out of the 60's. There is absolutely no definition of what people in this idyllic world are supposed to DO for a living. This is just more anti-business, anti-capitalist, save the earth and destroy PEOPLE talk.
  • Anonymous on May 19 2010 said:
    Have you seen any credible flow rates reverse calculated from the cubic area of the 'plume'. Even if 10 miles by 3 miles by 300 feet thick is overstated by a factor of 5, the flow rate would have to be exponentially larger than the official 211k gallons a day. I was previously figuring that perhaps density could bring the flow rate back down, but if the plume is indeed frozen, density would seem to my non-trained mind - pretty darn close to 1.
  • Anonymous on May 19 2010 said:
    If the plume is a frozen chunk, will the dispersant have any real impact on it?
  • Anonymous on May 19 2010 said:
    Purdue research exposes error in BP video"...Once Wereley used particle image velocimetry to create freeze-frame shots of the video, he used a computer code he developed to estimate how many pixels the diameter of the pipe was. BP said that the diameter was 21 inches, which Wereley estimated is equivalent to 400 garden hoses.Wereley created a conversion from pixels to inches to compute how fast the oil was coming out of the pipe. He used the area of the pipe and the speed of the oil, which he concluded was 2 feet per second, to compute the volume of oil being released. It was through these calculations that Wereley deduced 70,000 barrels of oil had been leaked..."http://www.purdueexponent.org/index.php/module/Section/section_id/11?module=article&story_id=21384
  • Anonymous on May 19 2010 said:
    Try for yourself the math based on the size of the plume - convert the miles to feet - calc. the sq feet by reported length and width - use the depth to calc. sq cubic feet. Adjust for gallons per sq cubic foot - I think its around 7.2 or 7.4, then adjust for 28 odd days of flow. Even if you adjust down figuring the measurements are all taken at the widest points, its still a crazy number. Adjust down further figuring the numbers are very overstated estimates. Or better yet, take the various flow rates offered and see how big of a plume they could make it 28 days and then compare to reported size. They don't equate so one or the other is clearly wrong.
  • Anonymous on May 19 2010 said:
    Let me get this straight. Big OIL is owned by the banks the big banks are owned by Oligarchs ie the royal families of Europe. Then they use this power to make the little guy work his whole life paying them while trying to avoid all the bogus laws. On top of that we could all be free if these evil people didn't kill people like Nicholas Tesla who invented alternative energy and hide all his inventions. So the power hungry could get their fill while making the little guy feel bad for just trying to live and not hurt anyone? Someone has to go to prison. And the list is a long one. SCUM!
  • Anonymous on May 19 2010 said:
    Sorry but the calculations for oil is wrong because oil is not the only thing coming out of the pipe. It is a range of gasses and oil. So most of what they see coming out is dirt and other gases.
  • Anonymous on May 19 2010 said:
    Please,......let us take all the above, and try to distil some sense into it.First, the 70000 barrels, at 42 gal/bbl. is per day....this is compatible with the biggest well I know of.Dispersant will not have an effect on a frozen clump. Anyway,the USA is the only country where the individual can own oil, a freedom which helped build. Total Oil is buying oil up worldwide (including Dallas Tx) using BIS (BIS.org Bank of International Settlements) money. Why that bank is perfectly safe, having been founded by the Nazi's, and having Bernanke as a Board of Director.This oil spill has really changed the entire operating basis of the world. Perhaps it is realized that there is no shortage of oil at deeper depths.Thanks, Dallas
  • Anonymous on May 19 2010 said:
    brent jones has it right. The banks mastery of us is tantamount to war. We have yet to begin to fight back!
  • Anonymous on May 20 2010 said:
    A BLACK DRAPE OF MOURNING SHOULD BE HUNG OVER THE DOI MISSION STATEMENT"Our Mission: Protecting America’s Great Outdoors and Powering Our FutureThe U.S. Department of the Interior protects America’s natural resources and heritage, honors our cultures and tribal communities, and supplies the energy to power our future."ONCE THAT DEPARTMENT REGAINS ITS SANITY, THE MOURNING CLOTH CAN BE REMOVED – ECOCIDAL JERKS!
  • Anonymous on May 20 2010 said:
    The planet has been abused for scores of years. Sooner, rather than later, the fulcrum point will be reached when the effect of volcanoes, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquake, drought, fire, pollution(air, water and soil) will have effects that most of our species can not imagine; muchless endure with their present level of life skills. We have been partying too hard and peeing into the wind while our brethern has suffered war, famine and disease. Buckminster Fuller said that the 1980's was the crossroad where humanity needed to make the correct decision to survive; and that man would make the wrong decision. We are presently witnessing unprecedented political, financial and environmental events, yet most minds do not recognize the pattern. Our vulnerability to the natural system has been underestimated by ignorance and arrogance. We will be painfully awakened from the slumber and it will be better for man in the long run. Imagine a world without war, famine or taxes; I have...
  • Anonymous on May 20 2010 said:
    Thanks for printing the story It stayed Classified far to long, couldn't get them to pute the booms in place...Slight correction...chg Florida Keys to Florida Ten Thousand Islands...there are more then 10,000,Mangrove Islands...that is were its popping up, It will kill them. I started screaming for Booms at 10 pm May 16th,...Finaly I posted ..."DEEPWATER HORIZON>Florida can't be saved, we will have a massive massive sea life Kill, say Good-by to the Ten Thousand Islands < 1:59 AM May 17th via TweetDeck" (GMT)Almost a total news blackout...even in the Fla Report 19, no booms in the Holding areas were sent south...as I Type this right now...We still have no booms in Collier, Dade or Monroe Counties. ...
  • Anonymous on May 20 2010 said:
    I read somewhere they said this "blob" is 300 ft thick, if so, some quick calculations show this mass contains some 1.5 trillion gallons of oil or approximately 4 billion barrels............ what have they hit down there????
  • Anonymous on May 20 2010 said:
    The "blob" lives in the white house
  • Anonymous on May 20 2010 said:
    Slimey bastards aren't they. Oil companies can lie right to a governments face and there is nothing they can do about. Not if they don't want the companies own private drilling and killing machine knocking down it's doors.
  • Anonymous on May 21 2010 said:
    Let's get this straight. Obama is not in charge of anything except maybe what he's eating for dinner. He doesn't make any decisions and never has. The question is "who are his bosses?" Does anyone really think that Obama was put into office by the guys on top because he was the most qualified? Well, he's the most quallified to take orders. Does anyone really think that the ruling families would suddenly put a guy like Obama in charge of everything. The presidency is a scam and this will not change. Blaming Obama is easy for us to do, but that's exactly what the higher ups want. Obama gets paid to be a scapegoat. That's one of his role! His role is not health care, gun control, pollution control, thinking about what's best for America, finances and so on...it's to represent the "government" in a particular and exact way that the higher ups want-some call them the NWO, some call them the Illumaniti.
  • Anonymous on May 21 2010 said:
    Once the whole southeast is polluted and barren, resistance to drilling will cease. GET IN LINE.
  • Anonymous on May 21 2010 said:
    My question is ..... If the oil is still around come hurricane season, and a hurricane passes through the affected area, will the states affected (wind rain etc), also have to deal with oil being blow inland also?
  • Anonymous on May 20 2010 said:
    How about releasing to the public sector the advanced energy technology that has existed under wraps for decades? We could have been off petroleum products since the 1950's. Big oil and the military industrial complex is killing this planet for greed at our expense. We're running out of time people. Please wake up! :zzz
  • Anonymous on May 20 2010 said:
    James,As someone working full-time with advanced energy technology since 1973, your information is simply wrong.There is, as yet, no production ready advanced technology that can replace oil.That may begin to change within a year or two - faster with a 24/7 development effort.As a former Air Force officer, I assure you if the military had a way to power vehicles without petroleum, they would have been using it without delay. Fuel is the biggest drag on military operations as well as a huge expense.
  • Anonymous on May 21 2010 said:
    There is also a bunch of suppressed and mostly unused technology that's been around ( some of it for almost a hundred years) but actively,shall i say, discouraged by the powers that be.Two of them are HHO hydrolizer (using Browns' gas(dangerous but effective) and Stan Meyer's water fracturing.Another is Tesla's stuff, which would give free energy. But it will probably never come to the fore b/c well, "you can't put a meter on it." (J.P. Morgan).Certain people and entities have a very big interest ( money and otherwise) in keeping these things under wraps.Magnetic motors are probably the key. But every time someone builds a functional one, it either disappears or the people do.Like i said there's a lot of money at stake and until and if certain groups want to give up their bling bling, nothing will change. That's a pretty big if and not a likely outcome
  • Anonymous on May 21 2010 said:
    Similar to an airline accident in that they are rare? Tell me sir, when was the last airline accident that had the capacity to destroy an industry and an ecosystem?
  • Anonymous on May 20 2010 said:
    this shows the sincerity of the president and vice president of somaliland. Nothing has been done been done to clear the mess of interpiece!! the fradurant cards are being issued by the nec. the only remedy for this is to use unwashable ink to deep one finger and one thumb for each voter. at the same time to cross examine all suspicious card holders.with all this going on the sitting leaders have accepted the election to go on. this is called patriotism. bravo reyale and ahmed and may allah bless u.
  • Anonymous on May 20 2010 said:
    what reyale and ahmed as president & vice of somaliland have shown and endured is something to be proud of. this is what is going to put them in the historical anals of the new republic of somaliland. may allah bless them for their patience and endurance of all that is bad mouthed by those power mongeering figures in somaliland. what interpiece and their lakeys have done in this country will never be forgiven and i hope the financiers are going to stop giving them more money. they are part of the corrupt UN organ which has been undermining somaliland since its creation.election will take place now with these fradurant cards. somaliland will everlast all these elements. longlive somaliland people. aluta continue
  • Anonymous on May 21 2010 said:
    ".....because of the landlocked status which Ethiopia now has since it gave independence to Eritrea, and included in Eritrean territory some Ethiopian lands and ports which had never historically been Eritrean, Ethiopia is now heavily dependent on the stability and goodwill of Djibouti and Somaliland.."boy..boy..boy....the writer obviously needs a basic lesson on the history of the Horn of Africa in general and Eritrea in particular. The fact of the matter is that there is no period in history when any land or ports of Eritrea was part of Ethiopia. You can twist and obliterate history beyond recognition to serve your own agenda, but facts will remain facts.
  • Anonymous on May 22 2010 said:
    Is keeping 250 people employed for 15 years really worth the terrible environmental costs of mountain-top removal mining? Not to me.If we destroy and despoil this planet such that it becomes uninhabitable, were are we to go?
  • Anonymous on May 22 2010 said:
    there are reports that the queen of england is a major share holder in bp, and also bp is involved with the trilateral commission and the bilderbergers, and so has the power and influence to pretty much do what it wants .
  • Anonymous on May 23 2010 said:
    for 'Wall Street' the main point will be for not one single criminal to get away with any of what has been going on, so the situation leads into a real test of USA lawmakers, who today appear to have demonstrated that they are willing to fail in their duty to USA citizens by working to protect the financial industry criminals.
  • Anonymous on May 25 2010 said:
    I recall articles in 2008 stating that any solution to the financial crisis must also include restoration of integrity. It has been two years and yet the gaming and scheming continue.The public has given up hope. We have nothing but contempt for the political establishment, and no hope for a finanical system so thoroughly rigged to serve the needs of everyone who can rig it.
  • Anonymous on May 27 2010 said:
    im still amazed at how many investors are ignorant to this. they call people like me conspircay theorists. have you ever watch level 2 quotes? you can watch them blatantly manipulate the hell out of the small caps. they but a massive size on a redicoulusly low ask so that anyone that wants to sell must sell below their price. and coincidently there is a huge bid just under that price waiting to scoop it up. fairly obvious when the huge bid/ask is in the hundred thousands while everyone else is dealing in lots of 1 or 2 hundred.
  • Anonymous on May 25 2010 said:
    Unfortunatley, the comments regarding energy prices in the article relate to the domestic/sme buisness sector. It's a concern when you have people making comments without fully understanding how the market operates. Celanese Acetate is a large energy user and so would be priced against the half hourly market for power. It would be good to know the actual energy purchasing strategy and decisions of the company to benchmark against wholesale energy prices for the UK through 2009 as they were not the highest across Europe as stated.
  • Anonymous on May 25 2010 said:
    Not at current or near term prices, but down the road. You bet!
  • Anonymous on May 26 2010 said:
    How about a bit more digging... Historically, does the BDI correlate as a lagging or leading indicator?
  • Anonymous on May 26 2010 said:
    The index is called Baltic Dry Index and not Tanker rates. So why mention of tankers? The assumptions laid out are not logical.
  • Anonymous on May 27 2010 said:
    i would think this is IRON ore, I'm long for 3 months.
  • Anonymous on June 02 2010 said:
    Remember everyone, The Fed pulled most of the M3/ Money supply out of the system this year, that they put in in '08 & '09.(There is still some of that money left in the system, but not much.This year, for anyone in business, is much worse than last year.People aren't spending, because they have no money to spend.I hope all of you have gotten your mortgage mods done, as this economy is not going to get better for some time.If there is a War w/Iran, or Korea, all bets are off.Last year, at the Port of L.A., there were miles & miles of cars parked there,with no where to go.Banks aren't lending a lot of money on car loans, so the cars coming in, just sit there, rusting in the Salt Air.There should be some very good deals on oil & iron ore coming soon.Those tankers can't sit offshore, looking for buyers, forever.Stay as liquid as possible.RegardsBon
  • Anonymous on May 26 2010 said:
    All America needs is another foreighn war, but to let this issue pass, without any response, only encourages other countries to beat up on America.
  • Anonymous on May 31 2010 said:
    Yes, I am involved in the seafood business, but that's not why I am writing. Before I sold shrimp, I was a leak sealer. 14 yrs.experience, retired. I would go into chemical and power plants and repair their leaks while in service. Avoiding costly down time. I've been watching what their trying to do to capture the leaking oil. A capture will not work well. The line needs to be plugged at the outlet. I believe I know how to do this but I am having a problem getting to the right place. Does anyone know where they are working on this problem in Houston Tx. I need an address are a number to this group are Tony Hayward . Please help! Thank You,Lynn Walker
  • Anonymous on May 28 2010 said:
    Two (2) Problems:Ethanol mpg is less than gas. andCorn based ethanol increases food costs. Also, corn gets a double federal subsidy.First for farming it, then the 45 cents/gal for ethanol production.In both cases federally collected taxes are going to private industry, with strings attached.Action like this makes it difficult to reduce taxes and the size of the federal government.
  • Anonymous on May 28 2010 said:
    It's time to eliminate oil as the major form of energy for vehicle use - This disaster is a strong reminder that the oil companies and government can't be depended upon to make sure the environment is safe. We can switch to electric cars with a focus on solar energy to power them.
  • Anonymous on June 05 2010 said:
    Ethanol MPG is less than gas, we all know that. People state this like its some big revelation. No one to my knowledge, including the ethanol proponents, have ever said otherwise. I don't really see why this is a problem, as long as its understood. Corn is not necessarily double subsidized, only when the price drops below the price of production. Ethanol has helped raise the price of corn and avoid this, although its barely above that right now (only about $3.15/bushel here in S Dakota). I like the idea of electric cars, but the battery design is still not good enough for them to be feasible. Even if someone came up with a feasible electric car tomorrow, it will take 15 years for the current fleet of vehicles to be retired/replaced. Ethanol is the ONLY fuel other than gas that you can burn in existing automobiles. Peak oil is coming. We can't afford to have only one source (just gasoline) developed for our use.
  • Anonymous on May 27 2010 said:
    The GULF OIL TRAGEDY and CAPE WIND have a lot in common -- stamps of approval from Kenneth Salazar and the MMS goon squad. Our life-giving waters cannot sustain more toxic burdens or spills. See the OFFICIAL MMS DOCUMENT "Cape Wind Energy Project Final Environmental Impact Statement, Jan. 2009 — US Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service" online for details of what MMS approved for the Breadbasket of Nantucket Sound. The Ecocide must stop!
  • Anonymous on May 28 2010 said:
    This is a smart move by russia, not only will it increase its abiltiy to defend itself in the case of an eventual war, but it will also send a signal to china that russia is prepared to defend itself.A war between russia and china is unlikely to be fought by just the two sides. It would be incomprehensible that the USA would sit by and watch China expand. The old wars of expansion are confined to the history books now. Only incredible carelessness on both the USA and Russia's part would see any change in this
  • Anonymous on May 29 2010 said:
    All of western europe, central europe and eastern europe, most of which make up NATO, are practically as socialist and nearly communist as Russia.Further, there is no recent past, no present and no ticking clock for future confrontation with Russia regarding western, central, eastern europe or NATO. Infact whatever conflict there is centers more about economic issues and economic competition than military which can be handled through negotiation and diplomacy, by offering NATO membership, by offering EU membership and offering Euro membership.The same cannot be said for China and China's manipulation of Central Asian nations and manipulation of North Korea.
  • Anonymous on May 29 2010 said:
    Russia cannot win a war with China 25 years from now or 50 years from now.Germany is leading the way in its distance from the US, its acting mediator for central and eastern europe and its embrace of Russia. Now Russia needs to respond. If not, the breakup and transfer of its eastern frontier is all but assured.
  • Anonymous on July 09 2010 said:
    There is very high potential of armed conflict becouse of economic crisis. Current bailouts are running out. US debt in China is too large to pay it back, China will demant something for exchange.. lets say Russia.
  • Anonymous on May 28 2010 said:
    $65/barrel is the cut-off point for profitability for deep ocean drilling and also tar sand and oil shale. Like you say, it costs more. A few days ago the price of oil was about $68/barrel. Speculation is one thing, but supply and demand still applies. A international slowdown is appropriate to push down the price of crude below $65 dollars. It's a step at mobilizing and helping consumer's understand that they(we) are not helpless. When you "Drive Easy" you save gas. Our grassroot's organization is 30,000 global supporter's and we have all the physics on our web site www.driveeasy.org. Conservation needs to be totally explored and applied along with more bikes and walking shoes. We really need to empower the consumer's and that would be step one. Remember...DriveEasy...Conserve.
  • Anonymous on May 30 2010 said:
    New energy is only half the picture. The other is efficiency:1) the reurbanization of our city instead of sprawl2) the reconstruction of trolleys, light rail, passenger rail, high speed rail, etc.3) LED and OLED lighting4) the redesign of electronics to be energy sipping5) LEED standards in western buildings, insulation and even simple things like heat pumpsOn the energy front there are Thorium Reactors which consume toxic waste in the burn, algae and bacteria genetically engineered bio-reactors for all forms of renewablesIF THE GOVERNMENT WOULD ONLY EQUALIZE SUBSIDIES ACROSS ALL FORMS OF ENERGY AND EQUALIZE SUBSIDIES FOR BASED ON ENERGY CONSERVATION/EFFICIENCY THE TRANSITION WOULD BE EMBRACED INSTEAD OF FOUGHT AND CHEAP INSTEAD OF EXPENSIVE!BUT THE GOVERNMENT LIKES TO PICK WINNERS AND LOSERS...
  • Anonymous on May 28 2010 said:
    Victoria can't have "63 wells within nine square miles of her home". Square miles is an area, not a distance. Are there 63 wells within 9 miles or does she live in a 3 mile by 3 mile area which has 63 wells within it?
  • Anonymous on May 30 2010 said:
    this extractive method should be banned as incompatible with public health, sound economic development, and protection of the environment for current and future generation. Very energy- and water-intensive.How about moving from fossil fuels now and depreciating your energy reserves over time?
  • Anonymous on May 28 2010 said:
    It is sad that Robert Tait accepts this regime as legit, by referring to the reformists as those who were defeated. How can you say that when Ahmadinejad claimed he counted 40 million votes in 2 hours.
  • Anonymous on May 29 2010 said:
    I read you loud and clear, author. I don't know how many lectures of various types I have given on this topic, but people simply refuse to understand. I hope I don't disturb anyone when I say that the acceptance of cap-and-trade is even more nut-house than accepting electric deregulation, especially now that the designers of cap-and-trade have said that it won't work.
  • Anonymous on May 29 2010 said:
    The economists who developed cap-and-trade have said that it won't work, so what is the point. Of course it is going to work wonderfully for brokers and similar operators, but their interest has to do with cash, and not carbon.
  • Anonymous on June 02 2010 said:
    Sigh. The 3 biggest scams in the history of mankind:#3: CO2 cap and trade.#2: fiat-debt-money AKA central banking AKA fractional-reserve#1: non-existent fantasies (governments, organizations, corporations) running and ruining the lives of every real human on earth.
  • Anonymous on June 03 2010 said:
    Congress are puch of criminal they are about to destroy the america economic system
  • Anonymous on June 03 2010 said:
    Cap & Trade and man-made global warming are both a load of crap. Obama simply wants to tax everyone and everything to death so he has funds to redistribute.
  • Anonymous on June 04 2010 said:
    Some signs worth following is that ICE has recently bought out the European Climate Exchange (and its subsidiary in the U.S., the Chicago Climate Exchange) for some $7mil. I can't see ICE spending that much money just to provide an honest burial service for these companies. With Morgan and Goldman setting up trading desks shows that some very knowledgeable players believe something is in the works. The crucial facts omitted from this article is how do you play it.
  • Anonymous on June 05 2010 said:
    How do us mere mortals (who ultimately pay for all this) work it to our advantage?Is that even possible...?
  • Anonymous on May 29 2010 said:
    No point in trying to figure it out, now that we know that it is more than 5000 b/d, and perhaps a lot more. The point is that this is one of those accidents that should not have happened, but for some reason do from time to time, and so the point is to cut the dramatics and make sure that it doesn't happen again.
  • Anonymous on June 01 2010 said:
    Where is the evidence of a torpedo hit? I've seen or read nothing to convince me that this was a torpedo. And,if it is true, then the United States has had a curiously muted response to what would inarguably be an act of war.
  • Anonymous on June 01 2010 said:
    Actually while it is the official position, known as the LNT it simply isn't true that "any exposure to radiation raises your risk of cancer." Or at least not only was their nop evidence when it was adopted as a useful standard for the bureaucracy but there has since been an awful lot of evidence for the opposite theory, known as radiation hormesis, that low level radiation is actually beneficial.
  • Anonymous on June 01 2010 said:
    Of course the rest of the world is addicted to oil and while you're correct to point out that there is currently no viable alternative that isn't to say that one will never exist. The upside of the spill is that is exposes the real costs of the commodity which we do not pay at the pump. As with most things the risks associated with oil production are socialized allowing for the privatization of massive profits. When that equation is undone we will begin to move forward
  • Anonymous on June 07 2010 said:
    This is a valuable article. I consider something like this in my new energy book, but this article is more up to date. Among other things it says something about just how rich the Gulf states are.
  • Anonymous on June 07 2010 said:
    How much of these taxes are paid in the US? Not much, I suspect. US taxpayers are subsidizing XOM for its payments to foreign countries. XOM paid no federal income tax in 2009. None. Nada. Zip.
  • Anonymous on June 08 2010 said:
    heyho, get on ExxonMobil's website. Look at what their industry taxes are for the past several years. If they didn't pay taxes to the U.S. in 2009 it's because they overpaid them ahead of time based on 2008 earnings, their best year. Earnings declined in 2009.
  • Anonymous on June 07 2010 said:
    Interesting article. Tells us something about the kind of stupidity that replaced Stalinism. The only defence posture that countries like Poland require is compulsary military service, where young men in the country learn something besides talking into mobile telephones and surfing the web.
  • Anonymous on June 07 2010 said:
    Seems that Poland is growing in statue, economically and now militarily.Warsaw is becoming the financial center for Eastern Europe, one trip tells the tale.
  • Anonymous on June 07 2010 said:
    What is going on in Gulf of Mexico is horrible, Some photos make you sick of this oil spill. What are they still doing? I received an email from a friend that if you are affected from the oil spill and would like to claim compensation from oil spill claim center, here is the place http://bit.ly/8Xj11D please forward this to your friends and family affected by this oil spill.
  • Anonymous on June 10 2010 said:
    The Problem isn't offshore drilling. This is a witch hunt, designed to deflect attention to the poor response to the problem. If US standards had required the installation of blowout preventers, this wouldn't have happened. Govts responsibility, as it is anywhere, is to set to set the playground rules. The US govt failed ESPECIALLY that of Obama, which promised greater environmental responsibility.
  • Anonymous on June 13 2010 said:
    Just wondering-does the goverment of the USA not have the resources to sort this thing???
  • Anonymous on June 20 2010 said:
    :-x Um, we could just scale back on the pace of life, let our grasses grow longer, let the work week slip to 3 days... just slow down the frantic pace of "progress".That may do something to help curb the use.
  • Anonymous on June 08 2010 said:
    This article is a propaganda piece. Note the use of the term "real energy." Iowa now gets 20 percent of its electricity from wind power. I guarantee that wind-generated electricity is real.
  • Anonymous on June 08 2010 said:
    for those who like to "buy low" and "sell high" this is a good time to buy for stocks such as STP. I had success with this strategy when it hit 6$ in March 09. Sell when it hits 20, then repeat.
  • Anonymous on June 11 2010 said:
    Thank you for taking time to share the graph with us.
  • Anonymous on June 10 2010 said:
    Goldman Sachs recently re-opened its Warsaw office, that should ring a bell.Poland is the rising star of Europe, one trip to Warsaw tells it all.
  • Anonymous on June 11 2010 said:
    Yes indeed, the Euro 2012 Cup in Poland is going to be one hot ticket..
  • Anonymous on June 11 2010 said:
    NOW this WE LIKE a LOT !!! something for the little guy that is busting his back while the fat cats are getting the solar now for a change we like this ..
  • Anonymous on June 16 2010 said:
    If, as some believe, we're about to go leg down on a double double dip recession / depression it might be a long time before it sees the high side of $5.
  • Anonymous on July 29 2010 said:
    This is referencing the article on the case of pipe line theft; I happened to come across your article and was quite amazed at the scale of the theft and also the huge financial loss it was making on the company and subsequently on the consumers. I wanted to bring to light and inform you that there is indeed a fool proof product existing that is designed to stop such scenarios. We are a product development company specializing within the energy sector and have co-developed such a product that is being used in many countries of the world. I can send you full details upon request I hope this information helps the fight against theft. Thank you and regards,
  • Anonymous on June 14 2010 said:
    Llewellyn, I think you look back to the early eighties that you will see that it was Steve Jobs, and Apple Computer that saw the value of the work being done at Xerox Park, and implemented it into Apple computers. A couple of years later Bill Gates on seeing the value of a Graphical User Interface, GUI on the Mac, copied it as an add on to his Disk Operating System, DOS,.
  • Anonymous on June 14 2010 said:
    The United States is behaving as a bully and personally I despise bullies. Iran won't be bullied and good for it.
  • Anonymous on June 16 2010 said:
    Sounds like the "Saddam Hussein has WMDs" arguement which proved to be false but served as a pretext for an undeclared war.
  • Anonymous on June 14 2010 said:
    I'm sure the political spin will be how we'll all be stimulating the economy by buying new, "greener" power equipment. Forget the carbon-cost of building it in dirty, polluting factories in China.
  • Anonymous on June 14 2010 said:
    Could it be that Turkey has turned against blockade, genocide, murder and the rest, SANCTIONED by the west?
  • Anonymous on June 14 2010 said:
    Israel declared war on arab nation.
  • Anonymous on June 14 2010 said:
    Greg, you and the growing chorus of Turkey critics miss one vital point. Turkey was criticizing Tel Aviv's military overkill off the Gaza coastline, not Washington's. So closely aligned have we become to Israel since the Reagan era, we now find ourselves reacting on behalf of the government of Israel. Instead of basing our policy determinations and official statements on the US's national security interests, we find ourselves uniquely defending the indefensible over and over again -- expending precious global political capital on Israel and attracting the whispered derision of even our allies.
  • Anonymous on June 14 2010 said:
    Mr. Greg,Turkey is against the killing of innocnet civilians, 60+years of occupation, Murder, Massacres, Ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, Stolen land, water, natural resources. Not Washington, unless that is what the US supports.. OH, that is what the US supports.
  • Anonymous on June 15 2010 said:
    Did someone say blockade? who is blockading Armenia for the past 17 years?
  • Anonymous on June 16 2010 said:
    turkey is a peacelover :-*The denial of the Armenian Genocide The denial of the Assyrian Genocide The denial of the Greek Genocide The occupation of Cyprus The illegal blockade of Armenia The suppression of the Kurds The imprisonment of journalists The suppression of freedom of speech The destruction of Christian monuments
  • Anonymous on June 17 2010 said:
    To respondants 1 -4, please check your history and geography books for you have been duped by the arab publicity-campaign to undermine Israel. Actually you can just google 'what is palestine', an entity which never existed until the British Mandate called it that from the Philistine of the Roman occupation. There has always been a large jewish presence in that area sinse ancient times when it was called Judea amongst other names. Get educated and stop promoting stupidity and hatred.
  • Anonymous on July 12 2010 said:
    2000 years of friendship with jews and this is what you get back! Turkey has every right to protect innocent muslims around the balkans,causacuss,and the middle east,since the U.N are unwilling to do the job.we Turks are strong enough to protect the muslims and we will not leave them at the hands of you murdering bastards.i urge all muslim brothers to unite and support TURKEY lets bring back the OTTOMANS
  • Anonymous on June 25 2010 said:
    Folks, if you read other information from around the world you will see that in AMerican we only get one side of the story. We are being spoonfed by our insane media that is so biased it is a known joke throughout the world. Israel and United States are doing the exact same thing they did in Iraq. There were no wmd's then, and there are no nuclear weapons in Iran now. We live is very evil times. The Eisenhower speech on the military industrial comlex will give you clues to what is really happening.
  • Anonymous on June 14 2010 said:
    Id have a helluva lot more respect for this line of thinking if those who employed it were intellectually honest about how deeply the risks of securing and delivering oil are socialized. Open Choke lives in a world with no negative externalities at all I guess.
  • Anonymous on June 15 2010 said:
    Ponzi Scheme,I have been following the Solyndra story for a while now and being part of PV industry and studying all data about the company, I see no way they can survive.I consider Solyndra a Ponzi scheme and they will not survive unless the cash keep coming in from VC's, government or wall street.
  • Anonymous on June 16 2010 said:
    He needs to open up a vein that will provide some pretty good blood flow, but not enough to actually kill the host. The political class mimics nature. 8)
  • Anonymous on June 16 2010 said:
    Firstly use correct wording, Israeli commandos did not storm the ship. The Israeli navy under international approved law, landed on that ship, after it refusal to allow it to inspect its cargo. Unarmed navy personnel went onboard to be greeted by a mob with crude weapons. There was artillery and assorted war devices onboard, including known terrorists. The only logical and rational solution is a 2 state option, but until Islamist fundamentalist, religious bigots accept this, peace cannot exist. Actually money and education, is not the answer, as we can see with Iran. The answer is Democracy. Freedom and equality for women, choice of sexual orientation, even choice of religion, and non-violent ideas and mentality will dissolve the siege. Turkey has become increasingly right-wing and jihadist, and that is the main source of this new threat of instability in the mid-east. Including mass mis-information, and corrupt governing in Gaza and the West Bank.
  • Anonymous on June 17 2010 said:
    The correct wording was used. Yours (althea) is pure propaganda. Who are these 'known terrorists' and where are the so called 'war devices'. Why were no Israelis killed with these war devices? The truth is that the death devices were held by the Israelis resulting in the murder of 9 unarmed people on boat of humanitarian aid. Israeli actions are despicable as are her defenders. This country has caused nothing but harm to us, and it's time to finally stop giving this rich racist country over 3 billion dollars a year, bombs and military aircraft, and our shameful support. It's time to label the Israel-firsters as they are- Traitors.
  • Anonymous on June 17 2010 said:
    Dear TM, the facts are there for all with clear minds and open eyes to see. And there is not enough space here to respond to all your inacccuracies. I suggest that you present yourself immediately to the nearest psyche ward to treat your paranoid delusions! Yours is clearly a case of projection onto others of your own confusion, hate and anger.
  • Anonymous on June 16 2010 said:
    A most informative article. The best I've read in a long time.
  • Anonymous on June 20 2010 said:
    So why isn't Hathor (HAT.TO) stock price moving higher? It has been range bound for a year even though they are continually finding very high concentrations of u308 in Saskatchewan with concentrations that rival McArthur River. It seems like no one is interested in uranium mines now that the price of uranium is at $40.
  • Anonymous on June 19 2010 said:
    1] 15,400 of them are on standby, like every other country in the world that is asking to help.[2] Appointing a Czar means more tee time for Obama.[3] Because Corexit is cheap.[4] Maybe because Corexit is the best at dispersing the radioactive waste.[5] Worst case scenario.[6] EPA monitors are getting gigantic hits of Naphthalene and Toulene gas.[7] Good for them, smart move[8] No comment.[9] I was not aware of that.[10] Because it might cause a panic on the plane. The Gulf of Mexico has become the harshest natural disaster mankind has ever witnessed.[11] Those little cracks are main contributor for BP to attempt a well site. "Look, oil, let's start diggin'!![12] I was no aware of that information.[13] Nobody wants Obama to look like he'd be covering up something so brutally terrible.[14] Because Toxic Waste is nasty stuff.[15] Hair and nylons.[16] The ocean is already low grade Napalm. Absolutely no campfires on the beaches down there.
  • Anonymous on June 29 2010 said:
    I think that the answer to most of these questions is that it is not in BP's interest to stop the spill. Whether or not ths disaster was intentional or by accident, the truth is that it is extremely beneficial to the oil companies to have the environment and the local fishing and tourism industries destroyed forever. These companies have to submit an Environmental Impact Assesment when they apply for permission to drill. The government can only refuse this permission if they have just reason for doing so, ie; sensitive envornmental issues and possible impact on the local community. With these issues out of the way, the goverment does not have the right to refuse a mining application so this opens the door for massive oil exploration in the Gulf.
  • Anonymous on June 17 2010 said:
    Fearsome people would rather lose money, than take risks.
  • Anonymous on June 17 2010 said:
    What people sense is a monetary change from the threat of rising inflation to a protracted period of deflation. All the signs of the latter are clearly visible: massive defaults at all levels, falling wages and hours, a shrinking money supply (M1), collapsing commercial real estate prices, further weakness in home prices, the imploding euro, slashed commodity prices, and a dozen other indicators. Wake up boyz and grls, this is a whole new outlook -- and it requires a whole new survival strategy. Cash will be king. Get all of it you can, while you can.
  • Anonymous on June 18 2010 said:
    We are grateful for the citation.However - our paper says nothing about food prices, or any prices. We only look at the distribution of the *quantities* of corn yield.Cheers, as they say.
  • Anonymous on June 18 2010 said:
    Tom Waterman missed one person on his top ten list. Robert Bryce.
  • Anonymous on October 17 2010 said:
    I think it is easy to blame the biofuels sectors for such problems like food commodity prices, etc. etc. etc. Too bad growth skeptics of various sorts have created a blame game that is proved to be their undoing. Please do not let those growth skeptics get in the way of attacking a potiential source of energy.Thank you.
  • Anonymous on June 19 2010 said:
    Not long ago I visited a whaling museum. Once upon a time we would have been told whale products are irreplaceable, yet they where replaced. One day we will see a similar museum for oil. We will see it because we must, oil demand will quickly outstrip supply as the recovery gains steam. Yes a higher oil price will bring more oil exploration, but even at todays prices an electric car powered by solar and wind is cheaper to drive than a gasoline powered car. $200+/barrel will hasten this transition, at some point oil prices will again drop simply because the economy has moved off of it. Sadly it takes far more regulatory run around to place a solar plant than it does an oil platform. As oil prices surge I believe we will also see expedited approvals for wind and solar, as has always been the case for oil.
  • Anonymous on June 19 2010 said:
    Robert Bryce...your so funny !!.. despite your leak of imagination...maybe you should be cited in this future museum Larry is speaking of...you really seem to believe what you say.....your lucky !!!.. isn't the opposite obviously the case ?..do you believe you have the means to predict technical evolution ?... you may have interest to explain the reasons of your motivation... you may gain credibility....
  • Anonymous on June 19 2010 said:
    I agree, but even more scary is the lack of action and usage of all the people-power waiting to help on all fronts. Saudi Arabia apparently had a very bad oil spill (1980's?) in the Persian Gulph and used huge tankers to suck it up until they could figure out what to do. A retired engneer from that spill has offered his expertise and is being stonewalled by BP and the feds. What's up with this, is it ego preventing them from asking the Saudi's for help. If there was a fire next door threatening the whole neighbourhood, fire stations from all areas would be right there helping. This spill will affect the ENTIRE Atlantic coast and more. Perhaps a much scarier consiracy (bildenberg?) is at hand. Obama is not studid, but who and what is tying his hands right now???
  • Anonymous on June 20 2010 said:
    Okay. Enough with this oil shit.70% of all oil production goes to power cars and trucks. Another 10% goes to the airline industry.The vast majority of people travel less than 40 miles a day.It would take no more than 40 square miles of wall-to-wall solar panels, deployed in arizona, to power 200 million small cars and trucks for America. That's leaves us plenty of time to figure what to do with the remaining 30% of oil production.Give me a break.
  • Anonymous on August 18 2011 said:
    India fed the LTTE under the Indhira Gandhi regime in early eighties.Why SL moves more and more towards China is the mismanagement of India on SL.during the eealam war 4 while India tried to stop the war during its last stages China and Pakistan provided all the weaponary the island nation needed.So it with great gratitude Sri lankans will remember Chinese assistance forever.
  • Anonymous on June 22 2010 said:
    Good to see a lighthearted take on the disaster. Of course we can't allow ourselves to see this situation as a joke, but a cheap laugh at BP's expense is something most of us want to see :lol:
  • Anonymous on June 22 2010 said:
    Just turn off al the lights all over the world except for the room you are sitting in. In Las Vegas alone that would be a big saving. in
  • Anonymous on June 22 2010 said:
    Wayne,Why pull numbers out of the air? It is well known that the Macondo well was drilled to a depth of slightly over 18,000 feet as measured from the rig floor. I am a retired oil industry engineer and offer my editorial services to keep you from making gross and and silly mistakes. My hourly fee is nominal. Less than an average attorney.
  • Anonymous on June 23 2010 said:
    Y'all must be drinkin' the black gold! I would give y'all some credibility if y'all would give me anmd all of us readers the direct references in say, the K. Salazar's filed paperwork or even the MMS filed acceptance of the deep well description. so what to make of this? Y'all either have a massiver cover up according to your implied theory or y'all are smokin' some mighty powerful weed. ACEMAN
  • Anonymous on June 23 2010 said:
    To the thumbs up for Kenneth Robbins (wayne) what the world needs at this time are people of knowledge and from the industries to resolve the problems, not the Masonic New World Order War games. People Power generates results. Experts need to demand the fix! This is the American way. Presidents and Politics create the problem.
  • Anonymous on June 24 2010 said:
    When the self proclaimed paid shill "experts" and the jewsual "name callers" are the first on a thread you know there is something they are worried about. :eek:
  • Anonymous on June 24 2010 said:
    you sure about that ken?In September 2009, the rig drilled the deepest oil well in history at a vertical depth of 35,050 ft (10,683 m) and measured depth of 35,055 ft (10,685 m).[11]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon
  • Anonymous on June 24 2010 said:
    Interesting, Wayne, but how does this square with the film "The Knowing" that provides clear forewarning of the rig exploding, and on April 20, no less....a date that lives in infamy as the birthday of Adolph Hitler.
  • Anonymous on June 24 2010 said:
    Okay, so we know that the 'leaders' at the highest level of government -- policy makers, environmental, science, military, and government decision makers --- knew and permitted this nightmare well to be drilled. They were so focused, according to this article, on their own agenda to go to war, that all else be damned. All those listed in this article has having participated in this nightmare should resign because they clearly are unfit to fulfill the duties of their office. If they won't resign in disgrace than Obama should fire them all and start with an intelligent team of agency heads. Even after they willingly participated allowing this well to be done with special insider favors of waving inspections, once the crisis was created they have zero wisdom on how to FIX the mess. Acid rain is already reported as far north as Tennessee! Hope and Change --- God, I hope things don't get worse...
  • Anonymous on June 25 2010 said:
    There had to be a connection to Israel and Iran somewhere in all this BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill fiasco.
  • Anonymous on June 25 2010 said:
    I question everything that our government, media, and corporations do, ever since 9/11. However, with all the information that is flying around on the news and internet sites, today. If I don't see "smoking gun proof". I don't really take everything that I see to heart anymore. I think that every article needs to be backed up with concrete evidence. If not it gets put in the "more BS pile". Don't you think?
  • Anonymous on June 27 2010 said:
    [quote name="Kenneth Robbins"]Wayne,Why pull numbers out of the air? It is well known that the Macondo well was drilled to a depth of slightly over 18,000 feet as measured from the rig floor. I am a retired oil industry engineer.....-----------------------------------------Sorry, the correct depth is 35,000 not 18,000 as you indicate:Transocean Ltd. (NYSE: RIG) announced that its ultra-deepwater semisubmersible rig Deepwater Horizon recently drilled the deepest oil and gas well ever while working for BP and its co-owners on the Tiber well in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. Working with BP, the Transocean crews on the Deepwater Horizon drilled the well to 35,050 vertical depth and 35,055 feet measured depth (MD), or more than six miles, while operating in 4,130 feet of water. Source: http://www.deepwater.com/fw/main/IDeepwater-Horizon-i-Drills-Worlds-Deepest-Oil-and-Gas-Well-419C151.html
  • Anonymous on June 23 2010 said:
    ere is one countering factor that was not mentioned here and that is the fact that the same entities - US gov., lawyers, etc. that could take BP go down may purposely keep it alive so that it provides a steady income to the leeches. Personally, I don't think they'll be able to resist sucking so much out of them initially, but it is possible. The law firm hired to disburse compensations to the injured parties around the Gulf is working hard to find legal ways to allow ALL affected parties to make claims (i.e., restaurant chains, etc.), not just those affected directly. There is literally not enough money in the world to pay for that, never mind little 'ol BP.
  • Anonymous on June 24 2010 said:
    Just another take over the u.s. gov will take over. Adding to the asset list of the many. Bankrupt them an take them over. fannie an freddie that holds 95% of all mortgages. The 2 automakers chevy an dodge. I wonder how ford slipped by. I see bp next an haliburton will also fall. The gov needs asets before it files bankruptcy
  • Anonymous on June 24 2010 said:
    The fundamental answer to this article is a question, namely: So what?The notion rules must be bent to avoid some unpleasant outcome is the core reason the world is SCREWED - and now run by authoritarian PREDATORS.This article, like endless justifications for creating "moral hazard" ignore equally endless negative consequences of "jiggering the rules" every time something inconvenient happens.Nobody should imagine that any oil well or other operating asset will vanish just because BP does. They will all continue, under the ownership of better companies with better management. If BP has insufficient resources to pay for ALL negative consequences of the damage they caused, then let other companies buy those assets as part of BP liquidation.THEN, pass the ONE and only law necessary. Every entity/company must have the resources (else purchase insurance) to fully compensate for the ***worst case*** disasters on every action they take.
  • Anonymous on July 02 2010 said:
    I am a former Bankers Trust employee; RAROC stood for Risk Adjusted Return on Capital (not Credit).
  • Anonymous on June 26 2010 said:
    Trying to catch a falling knife? Good luck.The liability could be much larger than anticpated, and as well, the risks. BP is not right now a company to make a bet on. They have very poor corporate culture that needs change. It will take a long time. Better to wait than to guess.
  • Anonymous on July 15 2010 said:
    companies that can benefit from the oil spill such as MDI
  • Anonymous on June 27 2010 said:
    What is the vintage of this map? Is it recent enough to be representative of all the shale gas discoveries world wide? If so, seems there's much to do about nothing in shale's case?
  • Anonymous on June 24 2010 said:
    I hope your wrong. If you are, I will delete you as a rumor monger/sensationalist.If you are right, god help the people of the gulf and this will have knock-on effects all over the world.I am an Aussie and know we live in a global village.
  • Anonymous on June 24 2010 said:
    Just print $2-3T to wipe up the gulf with all that money.
  • Anonymous on June 24 2010 said:
    the gulf has dead zones that big every summer from the runoff from the farms and dairies that use fertilizer up north that travel down the Mississippi River. Also a bigger spill happened from a Mexican Well and we did not have to evecuate and towns, etc. Why do you think thwe drinking water in New Orleans is poisonous.
  • Anonymous on June 25 2010 said:
    Reuters have also covered the story - "Dead Zone" listed again. This is going from bad to worse:http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65L6IA20100622
  • Anonymous on June 25 2010 said:
    What is this world coming to. Anyone could see those toxic chemicals were not going to solve the problem, I think they just had a stock of them and wanted to put them to use. Just make it worse, It would be better just to take it off the top and wherever it forms underwater by itself then try to turn the ocean into a dishwashing machine
  • Anonymous on June 25 2010 said:
    Acid rain, a shrinking ozone layer, and man-made global warming (a theory now discredited) were all going to destroy the planet. Let's all pray this is more left-wing fear mongering. For FEMA to be right is just too horrible to contemplate.
  • Anonymous on June 25 2010 said:
    Using toxic dispersants just made a horrible situation worse. Now they are going to have to deal with health problems of the clean-up workers and residents withing hundreds of miles. Why they aren't using Bio-remediation to clean up this disaster is criminal.
  • Anonymous on June 25 2010 said:
    The oil spill is bad sure. There have been many bad spills. A lot of which you have never been told about. Why do you think this is being handled in a manner that is guaranteed to cause concern and panic? Do you think they are hiding how bad it is or the fact that it is a distraction? Whenever something big hits the news and gets as much attention as this spill has you need to ask yourself one question, what is going on that I am not hearing about. I assure you there is worse being done and you are not hearing about it. This is an old game. You have to look deeper. We are coming to a time when we have to know what the traitors are up to in order to survive,
  • Anonymous on June 25 2010 said:
    The Reuters story is about methane mixed with